e-Watchman.com

41. Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus says, "... ALL [other] things have been created through him and FOR HIM". If Jesus were Michael the Archangel at the time of creation, would an angel have created all things for himself? Isa 43:7 says God created "everyone ... for my OWN glory ..." If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible, why does it alter the written word of God by adding the word “[other]” even though it does not appear in the original Greek? See Gr-Engl Interlinear. How would this verse read if the word “[other]” had not been added? What does the word “all” mean to you?

Again, Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a reading comprehension problem. We understand what words like "all" mean.

The context of the extracted verse plainly indicates that Jesus is himself a creation of God. Colossians 1:15-16 read: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities."

Since Jesus is in the image of God, the same as Adam was initially, it is obvious that Jesus is not the Creator. It is, in fact, ludicrous to suppose that Paul was teaching Christians that God is an image of himself. Yet, that is exactly the sort of nonsense that Trinitarians would have us believe. Too, Trinity defenders have tried to peddle the ridiculous notion that "firstborn" doesn't mean the firstborn, but it simply means the most prominent. If that's the case we will leave the Trinitarian with the burden of explaining why God would sanction such an awkward way of illustrating his own undisputed position of superiority.

Anyone acquainted with the mind-wrenching reasonings of Trinitarians can appreciate why the Watchtower felt the need to inject some clarity into such frequently distorted passages such as Colossians 1:15.

42. Heb 1:3, in speaking of Christ says, “…and he sustains ALL things by the word of his power…” What does the word “all” mean to you? How could Christ “sustain all things” unless he is almighty? Since only God is almighty, what does this verse say about Christ?

43. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible, why does it alter the word of God by adding the word “[others]” in Acts 10:36 when this word does not appear in the Greek? See Gr-Engl Interlinear. How would this verse read if the word “[others]” had not been added to it? What does the word “all” mean to you?

Again, most readers have no trouble comprehending what simple words like "all" mean. The verse in question reads: "At this Peter opened his mouth and said: "For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him. He sent out the word to the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus Christ: this One is Lord of all [others]."

Actually, though, the apostle Paul discussed what the word "all" means as it relates to Jesus' dominion. The questioner may be startled to know that "all" does not always mean everything and everyone. At 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, the inspired apostle wrote: "For God "subjected all things under his feet." But when he says that 'all things have been subjected,' it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.  But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."

Paul reveals that the Father, Jehovah God, has indeed subjected all things to the rule of his son, Jesus. There is, however, one exception. Paul even noted that the exception is evident. God himself is the exception. What does the word "exception" mean to you?

44. Does Prov 4:18 really justify an organization replacing doctrines and failed prophecies with new doctrines and prophecies, or does it simply contrast the benefit to the "righteous" of obeying a wise father (Prov 4:10-19)? A false teaching can be called a "false word" and Prov 13:5 says, "A false word is what the righteous hates..." When the WTS changes a teaching to something that is totally different or even the exact opposite of a previous teaching, is it like a light that is “getting brighter and brighter” or more like having one false light (word) completely turned off and a totally different light turned on? Do you think the WTS would be critical of any other religious organization that changed its teachings as many times on as many different issues over the last 100 years as the WTS has? In addition, Jude 3 says, “…to put up a hard fight for the faith that was ONCE FOR ALL TIME DELIVERED to the holy ones.” Since the faith was established and “once for all time delivered” to the first century Christians, and since the Bible doesn’t change and God doesn’t lie or change his mind (Num 23:19, Ps 89:34, Heb 6:18), why the need for constant “new light” and ever changing teachings of the WTS, many of which directly contradict former WTS teachings?

45. According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary, the Greek word “theotes” (Strong’s # 2320) used only once in the Bible in Col 2:9, is translated as “the state of being God, Godhead”. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible, why does it mistranslate this Greek word “theotes” as “divine quality” in Col 2:9, instead of “Godhead”?

The NWT does not differ substantially from other translations. Here is the NWT rendition of Colossians 2:9-10: "because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so you are possessed of fullness by means of him."

Here is the popular NIV rendering: "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete."

46. In the WTS book You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth states on page 147, “…Bible evidence shows that in the year 1914 C.E. God’s time arrived for Christ to return and begin ruling.” It also states “In the same way, Christ’s return does not mean that he literally comes back to this earth. Rather, it means that he takes Kingdom power toward this earth and turns his attention to it.” This event is described in Zechariah 14:4, which states, "And HIS FEET WILL ACTUALLY STAND in that day upon the mountain of the olive trees which is in front of Jerusalem on the east…" If Jesus has no body and if he will not literally come back to earth, as only the WTS teaches, how do you explain this verse? What does the phrase “his feet will actually stand” mean to you? In addition, Zech 14:3 says that it is Jehovah’s feet that will stand upon the mountain of the olive trees. Since Jesus is the one who is coming, how can this be unless Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same? Similarly, if Christ will not have a visible return to earth, but returned invisibly in 1914, then how was he seen by "ALL the tribes of the earth" (Mt 24:30), and by "EVERY eye" (Rev 1:7) when he returned? What do the words “all” and “every” mean to you? How can Christ "APPEAR" a second time (Heb 9:28) if he will not have a visible “return” to earth?

An insurmountable difficulty facing those who try to interpret apocalyptic prophecy literally is that the Bible very simply says that no man has ever seen God. Not only that, Jehovah told Moses that no man may see God and live. It is simply out of the realm of possibility that mere humans can ever have an up-close-and-personal encounter with God. We cannot even glance directly at the sun for more than a few seconds without doing permanent damage to our eyes. How do you suppose we shall look upon the Creator of billions upon billions of suns without instantly vaporizing?

Jehovah made us with the intention of our having a spiritual relationship with him. In order for us to be able to relate to him, God has revealed himself in human terms. Jehovah likens himself to humans anthropomorphically.  Thus, we read in Genesis that Jehovah strolled about in the Garden of Eden about the breezy part of the day. Since we already know that Adam could not literally see God and survive, it is evident that the expression is intended to help us appreciate the intimate spiritual communion that Adam had with God before he rebelled. In that same sense, then, we may be sure that Jehovah is not literally coming down to stand upon the Mount of Olives.

47. According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary, the Greek word “klao” (Strong’s # 2806) means “to break; used in the NT of the breaking of bread or communion” and the Greek word “artos” (Strong’s # 740) means “food made with flour mixed with water and baked” or “bread”. Jesus himself used these same words “”klao” and “artos” in Lk 22:19 at the Last Supper and Paul also uses these words in 1Cor 11:23-24. In these verses, the NWT translates these words accurately as “broke” and “loaf”. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible, why then does it translate the Greek phrase “klao artos” of Acts 2:46 and Acts 20:7, as “took their meals” and “have a meal”, instead of the much more accurate “break bread”? See Gr-Engl Interlinear. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible, what is the reason for the inconsistency of the translation of these words between Lk 22:19 and Acts 2:46, 20:7? In Acts 2:46, how often did the early Christians meet to break bread?

Translators do not merely convert words into other words. They should seek to convey thoughts and concepts, as they were originally understood. As for the verse in question: Bread was the staple for ancient peoples. Because of that, it came to represent all food in some instances. For example, when Jesus taught his disciples to pray the model prayer, he told them to pray to his Father asking for Jehovah to supply them their daily bread. Are we to understand Jesus' words to mean that we should subsist entirely on literal bread or that the only food God will supply us with is bread?

It should be evident to discerning persons that taking bread or breaking bread together simply represents sharing meals together. The New Living Translation (NLT) renders Acts 2:46 as: "They worshiped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord's Supper, and shared their meals with great joy and generosity."

48. Acts 1:11 says, “This Jesus who was received up from the you (apostles) into the sky will come thus IN THE SAME MANNER as you have beheld him going into the sky.” What does the phrase “in the same manner” mean to you? Did Jesus literally, physically, and in plain view ascend to heaven (see Acts 1:9)? What does the phrase “while they were looking on, he was lifted up” in Acts 1:9 mean to you? If Jesus physically and in plain view ascended to heaven, then how can Jesus have an “invisible” return to earth if his return will be “in the same manner” as his ascension?

A sacred secret as enigmatic and profound as the nature of Christ's return can never be understood by those who take a one-dimensional, this-verse-explains-it-all, approach to interpretation. Rather, one-verse doctrines are characteristic of those who are bent on deception.

The answer to your question is that Jesus did not physically ascend into heaven in the first place, and so, therefore, will not return in that manner. We may be assured that Jesus will never become human again based upon Jesus' comments to Nicodemus, in the 3^rd chapter of John, where he explained that "what is flesh is flesh and what is spirit is spirit." That means that those who are born again, as Christ was, leave off their human flesh and become spirits. Paul also wrote at 2 Corinthians 5:16, saying in the now awkward phraseology of the King James: "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." If anointed Christians will never again know Christ according to the flesh, then that rules out the notion that Jesus will be returning in the flesh—as many wrongly assume.

So, what did the angels mean when they said that Jesus would return in the same manner? Well, what was the manner of his departure? Carefully consider the instance that led up to the angelic proclamation at Acts 1:9-11, which  reads: And after he had said these things, while they were looking on, he was lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their vision.  And as they were gazing into the sky while he was on his way, also, look! two men in white garments stood alongside them,  and they said: "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was received up from you into the sky will come thus in the same manner as you have beheld him going into the sky."

Bible students ought to take note of the fact that Jesus had already departed from their view at the time the angels spoke to the disciples. The disciples were in fact standing there, no doubt awestruck at the spectacle of Christ's ascension, even long after Jesus had disappeared into a cloud. At that moment the angels questioned why they were still peering into the sky, as if they were hoping to get another glimpse of Jesus. Since Jesus was not visible at the time the angels spoke, their saying that Jesus would return in the same manner would mean that gazing into the sky for Christ's return would be as futile as the vigil the apostles and other disciples were holding at the moment the angels intervened. In other words, Christ was invisible at the point the angels said that he would return in the same manner.

The fact that Christ was caught up in a cloud harmonizes with the prophecy of Daniel 7:13, which reads in the NIV as follows: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence."

The vision in Daniel depicts the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven and approaching Jehovah God in his residence in heaven. Ought we to suppose that Jehovah's heaven has literal precipitous rain clouds floating about? Of course not. The Watchtower has insightfully pointed out many times that clouds are really a symbol denoting invisibility—as is obvious in that text. For instance, clouds can literally obscure the sun, moon and stars. And, so, if the Son of man is coming on the clouds of heaven, rather than imparting the idea that Christ is coming back physically, discerning students of God's Word recognize that the prophecies teach us just the opposite—that Jesus' return will be invisible.

49. According to Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary, the Hebrew word “ruwach” (Strong’s # 07307) used in Gen 1:2 means “spirit”. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible, why does it mistranslate this word as “active force”? Similarly, in 1 John 4:1, the NWT translates the Greek word “pneuma” as “divine expressions” even though this same Greek word is translated as “spirit” in 1Jn 3:24, 1Jn 4:2,3, and 6. Why the inconsistency in the translation of this word? Isn’t John's whole point here that even though the Spirit's presence in us gives us assurance of God's love, we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims to be from God, but test them by the teachings which their prophets espouse, "because many false prophets have gone out into the world"? Is the NWT obscuring this point in order to avoid the implication that God’s "spirit" is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic "spirits" are personal entities and not impersonal forces). In addition, in 1Tim 4:1, the NWT translates the simple Greek word “pneuma” as “inspired utterance”, instead of “spirit”. What is the reason for this inconsistency in translation of the word “pneuma”? Is it because a straightforward “the spirit says” would too obviously imply the personality of the Holy Spirit?

The questioner supposes that words do not have multiple meanings or that there are not subtle nuances to certain words. In this he is very much mistaken. According to Jason BeDuhn, in his Truth in Translation, the problem is that modern translators have erroneously consolidated many biblical references to the spirit into the simplistic concept of the holy spirit.

Actually, the Hebrew word "ruach" comes from a root word that means to breathe. It also can mean wind or the vital force that initiates breathing. Depending on the context, oftentimes ruach is translated as wind. The Greek equivalent is "pneuma," which is where English words like pneumatic and pneumonia come from—of course, also having to do with air or breathing air. Interestingly, many translations render pneuma as winds instead of spirits at Hebrews 1:7. (In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.") NIV

So the original languages used those terms to simply indicate that spirit is an invisible force, much like breath or wind. The term "active force" more literally translates the flavor of the Hebrew and Greek words at Genesis 1:2.

As far as 1 John 4:1, the NWT reads: "Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world." Translators of the Bible recognize that the same word may have different meanings depending on its usage. That's why the notion of a word-for-word literal translation is misleading. It is true that the word generally translated as "spirit" is used in this text. However, translating the Bible demands that translators make the original thought available to the reader—not merely the corresponding word in another language. Hence, in that context the Hebrew word generally translated as spirit carries the thought of being breathed upon by a spirit in the sense of being inspired. The English word "inspiration," similar to the word "respiration," carries the connotation of the original language, in that the one inspired acknowledges being touched or influenced by an outside source. In the Bible inspiration literally means that God breathed upon the one inspired. Revelation indicates that the demons can also breathe upon men and inspire them to tell lies. So, that is the sense of 1 John 4:1: Inspired expressions are the end result of the spirit breathing upon those individuals. 

The New Living Bible (NLB) similarly expresses John 4:1, saying: "Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world." In the original there was no word that would correspond with the English word "speak," however, the translators of the NLB recognized that in order to impart to the reader the real sense of the original expression, it was necessary to indicate that the verse was not referring to the spirits themselves, but rather to the utterances the spirits inspired.

50. To what was Jesus referring to by the term "this temple" in Jn 2:18-19? In Jn 2:21 John explicitly states that when Jesus used the term "this temple", he was referring to his body. If the WTS teaching that Jesus' body was destroyed after his death is correct, then how do you explain these verses?

Jesus was speaking in spiritual terms that the Jews and even his own apostles could not at first understand. Most people think of a temple in terms of a physical structure where some type of formal worship or sacrifice is carried out. In Jesus' day the temple of God was the stone-and-mortar edifice located in Jerusalem. Jesus originally spoke those words to the Jews to give them pause to reconsider how God expected to be worshipped from that point on. Jesus foretold that the Jewish temple was going to be razed to the ground, with not a stone left upon a stone. The Christian congregation was going to replace the Jewish nation as God's organization. But, instead of having a physical temple, Christ and his anointed followers would constitute a spiritual temple for God to inhabit by spirit, and Jesus, as the head of that organization, is called the chief cornerstone of the "building." That's why Jesus compared himself to the Jewish temple.

Furthermore, Jesus' fleshly body was sacrificed to God, as if on a temple altar. After his resurrection Jesus became God's high priest, ministering on the basis of his own sacrifice. That is why Jesus referred to the temple of his body. Here are a few relevant verses that indicate the spiritual nature of God's temple.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17: "Do you not know that you people are God's temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, which temple you people are."

1 Corinthians 6:19: "What! Do you not know that the body of you people is the temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God?"

2 Corinthians 6:16: "For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: "I shall reside among them and walk among them, and I shall be their God, and they will be my people."

Ephesians 2:20-22: "While Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. In union with him you, too, are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit."