Thursday, May 21, 2009

Answers to Jehovah's Witnesses -part 1-

I got a bunch of comments on the last blog. I want to take some time to clarify a number of things.

First off, the intended main audience for my blog is those who know me. I believe that the best use of the internet is to strengthen real-life relationships, and not to pretend that you are getting to know people through a screen and some cables. That's my philosophy, you might say.

So, I don't claim to cover everything I believe in my blog. But, since it came up, I'll try to answer some questions.

First off...

Voice of Reason said...

You complain about Jehovah's Witnesses?

You look like a terrorist.

You say that JWs are mislead, but not how. Like many, you are just a follower of the bad publicity.

I'm glad that "Voice of Reason" thinks I look like a terrorist. I don't know if that means I look Arabic, or that I sound hateful.

As for the former, I'm not Arabic, I'm half white and half Asian (1/4 each of Japanese and Chinese), and I know there are many (most!) Arabs who are great people who love their families and others around them. Doesn't sound like "Voice of Reason" was being very reasonable if that was what he/she meant.

If "Voice" meant that I was hateful, he/she clearly did not read the tone of what I was writing. I said what I believed about JWs, but did not feel the need to tear apart what they believed through a long discourse. At the end of the blog, I referred to the fact that some of what I believe is incorrect, and I need to carefully examine it. For "Voice" to not recognize that I was not merely pointing the finger, but examining my own beliefs, was rather irrational.

Since "Voice" said I didn't discuss what I disagreed with, let me clarify.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God. Orthodox Christians (those who have "right belief"--the meaning of "orthodox"), believe that Jesus is fully man and fully God. For more information on what any orthodox Christian believes, check out the Nicene Creed. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the creeds either. How convenient.

In John 1:1, it says, "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In the Jehovah's Witness translation, The New World Translation, the verse is translated as "the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

This shows a fundamental abuse of the word "the" (the definite article). Any Greek scholar can show how irresponsible and infantile this rendering is.

The order of the Greek words in the second part of the phrase "the Word was God," shows that "God" is used as a name--the name of "the Word." It really should say, "the Word was with God, and God was the Word."

Thus, there is a fundamental difference between what we believe. And the most important belief in Christianity is that Jesus is God. Without that, his death and resurrection are meaningless. I know that Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with that idea completely, and I don't expect to convince any of you out there via a blog post from someone you don't know.

I do have a B.A. in Bible/Theology with 2 years of Hebrew taken from one of the leading Hebrew Scholars in the world, Dr. Kevin Spawn, but that doesn't matter either, probably.

I only mention the Hebrew thing because the very word "Jehovah" is a mis-transliteration of YHWH. I guess the name "Joshua" is too. That's trivial though.

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe in using only one translation, which unfortunately misleads many, many people.

To those of you who are Jehovah's Witnesses, I don't want to sound like I hate you guys. I only hope and pray that you will ask yourself the same question I ask myself..."why do I believe what I believe?" Is it because someone taught you? Or, is it because you took the time to doubt and reconsider everything you believed and still found it to be just as true as before?

I would encourage you to learn some Hebrew and Greek on your own, and to read the text in its original language.

5 comments:

Andrew Ratiani said...

i also liked how jessica said a bunch of stuff. it seemed like she was trying to make you feel bad for questioning what they believe, by showing things that all people that believe part of the new testament agree on. the weird thing is looking at how we interpret even things that everyone agrees on can be changed when you tie them into the fact that jesus was and is the son of God, and is fully divine.

okay, i'm not going to go on a rant here, but i wanted to say i like how you defended yourself without saying anything that was an attack on someone's character. (you know, like calling them a terrorist or something like that.)

Andrew Ratiani said...

oh, and i agree with all of what you said. yay for the Nicene creed.

JohnOneOne said...

For those who may have an interest, the rendering of the third clause of John 1:1 as, "and the Word was a god," is not so unusual, that is, in identifying Jesus as "a god" who was with God.

Most every Biblical commentary can be found to rightly explain the Biblical use of this title for others when analyzing Jesus' words at John 10:34, 35. The following is but one example of just such an assessment:

"The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘elohim) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,…"

Taken from: Blomberg, Craig L. (b.?-d.?), Distinguished Professor of the New Testament, Denver Seminary, Colorado. "The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary." (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), “The feast of Dedication” ([John] 10:22-42), p. 163. BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

Unknown said...

JohnOneOne,

John 10:34 and John 1:1 aren't talking about the same thing.

The book of John establishes that Jesus is both the Son of God, and God.

I'm not so stupid as to assume that I could convince you of this point, but I want all my readers to know the Truth.


In Hebrew, elohim means "heavenly beings, gods, or God." The use of the plural has many functions in Hebrew that do not all correspond to English plural functions. One is the "royal we," in which the plural is used to distinguish a ruler.

But, elohim, can also refer to "heavenly beings," which invalidates the assumption that it always is referring to god(s).

You also claim that "most every biblical commentary can be found..." to agree with the JW viewpoint.

That is not at all the case. You don't cite a list of "most every biblical commentary." Maybe most every biblical commentary that you as a JW find to be valid. But the larger scholarly community does not agree with that. And in reality, the vast majority of scholars disagree with the JW view.

Hence, the vast number of Evangelical scholars.

Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah is fully God and is fully man. There is no one like Him.

That's the truth.

JohnOneOne said...

I said:

"Most every Biblical commentary can be found to rightly explain the Biblical use of this title ["god(s)"] for others when analyzing Jesus' words at John 10:34, 35."

Not only do I stand by this statement (which I would certainly invite your readers to investigate for themselves), but I would also include those which also deal with the wording of which Jesus had quoted there, Psalm 82:6.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to express my views here, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com