Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
Wednesday, 26 March 2025
Monday, 24 March 2025
Sunday, 23 March 2025
An oversimplification examined.
The Position on Organ Transplants
"Agreeing to an organ transplant or organ donation is a personal decision." http://jw-media.org/aboutjw/article02.htm#organ
In an effort to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses and portray them negatively, some religious opposers advance an accusation regarding the position of Jehovah's Witnesses on organ transplants between the years 1967 and 1980.
Did Jehovah's Witnesses zigzag on the acceptability of organ transplant therapy during 1961, 1967 and 1980? As we shall see after an honest examination, the choice was always ultimately left to the conscience. Also, there was never a danger of being disfellowshipped, and while this case became similar to the case of blood transfusions, it falls far short of being equivalent.
Included also is a consideration of what other faiths believed at the time, and how and when organ transplantation improved into the relatively safe therapy that it is today.
What was the position over time?
In the 1950's there was no mention of any transplant procedures in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications, as transplant procedures were still in their infancy. It was in 1961 however, that brief mention of the subject was first made in their doctrinal magazine The Watchtower of August 1, in its Questions From Readers section. The question was:
Did Jehovah's Witnesses zigzag on the acceptability of organ transplant therapy during 1961, 1967 and 1980? As we shall see after an honest examination, the choice was always ultimately left to the conscience. Also, there was never a danger of being disfellowshipped, and while this case became similar to the case of blood transfusions, it falls far short of being equivalent.
Included also is a consideration of what other faiths believed at the time, and how and when organ transplantation improved into the relatively safe therapy that it is today.
What was the position over time?
In the 1950's there was no mention of any transplant procedures in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications, as transplant procedures were still in their infancy. It was in 1961 however, that brief mention of the subject was first made in their doctrinal magazine The Watchtower of August 1, in its Questions From Readers section. The question was:
"Is there anything in the Bible against giving one's eyes (after death) to be transplanted to some living person?"
The answer, being a single paragraph, was:
"The question of placing one's body or parts of one's body at the disposal of men of science or doctors at one's death for purposes of scientific experimentation or replacement in others is frowned upon by certain religious bodies. However, it does not seem that any Scriptural principle or law is involved. It therefore is something that each individual must decide for himself. If he is satisfied in his own mind and conscience that this is a proper thing to do, then he can make such provision, and no one else should criticize him for doing so. On the other hand, no one should be criticized for refusing to enter into any such agreement." (italics added)
As we can see, no objection to organ transplants is presented here, and the decision is left to the person's conscience to accept or refuse.
During the 1960's, the subject for debate was the question of giving transplants to living persons for experimental purposes. In fact, the University Professor of Anesthesiology at Harvard's Medical Faculty published his famous June 16, 1966 article denouncing an extensive series of ethically-questionable medical experiments (Henry K. Beecher, "Ethics and Clinical Research." New England Journal of Medicine, 1966; 274: 1354-60). Soon after, in 1967 there appeared another famous work in the same vein: Human Guinea Pigs, by the British doctor M. H. Pappworth.
It was at this time that The Watchtower of November 15, 1967 commented on organ donation in its Questions From Readers section, in response to the following:
During the 1960's, the subject for debate was the question of giving transplants to living persons for experimental purposes. In fact, the University Professor of Anesthesiology at Harvard's Medical Faculty published his famous June 16, 1966 article denouncing an extensive series of ethically-questionable medical experiments (Henry K. Beecher, "Ethics and Clinical Research." New England Journal of Medicine, 1966; 274: 1354-60). Soon after, in 1967 there appeared another famous work in the same vein: Human Guinea Pigs, by the British doctor M. H. Pappworth.
It was at this time that The Watchtower of November 15, 1967 commented on organ donation in its Questions From Readers section, in response to the following:
"Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one's body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source?"
Rather than present a single paragraph leaving the matter to the conscience, commendably the article attempted to ascertain God's view of the matter by considering scriptures and principles. However, it also compared accepting a transplanted organ to cannibalism. On that it stated:
"Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others."
Granted, this opinion was taken from the article "Medical cannibalism" appearing in the Encyclopœdia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings (Volume 3, page 199), which it referred to and quoted from in its next paragraph. While the response included this comparison in an attempt to be balanced and informative, it also had the potential to offend and distract from the deciding power of the conscience also presented in the same Questions From Readers. Therefore the comparison to cannibalism proved to be unfortunate.
However, even with the unfortunate caution expressed above, the same Questions From Readers article did in fact leave the decision up to the person, as it later stated:
However, even with the unfortunate caution expressed above, the same Questions From Readers article did in fact leave the decision up to the person, as it later stated:
"Baptized Christians have dedicated their lives, bodies included, to do the will of Jehovah their Creator. In view of this, can such a person donate his body or part of it for unrestricted use by doctors or others? Does a human have a God-given right to dedicate his body organs to scientific experimentation? Is it proper for him to allow such to be done with the body of a loved one? These are questions worthy of serious consideration."
Further highlighting the role of the individual's conscience, it closed with these comments:
"[T]he Christian can decide in such a way as to avoid unnecessary mutilation and any possible misuse of the body. Thus he will be able to have a clear conscience before God.—1 Pet. 3:16.
It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God's Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105."
Thus, it is important to note that the same article also left much to the person's conscience.
Shortly thereafter in the medical world, in December 1967, the first successful human-to-human heart transplant was performed by Professor Christiaan Barnard at Groote Schuur Hospital in South Africa (the patient lived 18 days, which was considered successful for a high-risk experimental surgery, as such transplants were at the time).ftn1
During the following years from 1968 to 1975, there were some occasional and brief mentioning of organ transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' magazines, The Watchtower and Awake!, all of them expressing medical concerns like inherent transplant risks and the side effects of immunosuppressive drugs, and generally referenced non-Witness works and authors (the last of such appeared in the September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, page 519 under "Insight on the News" which noted documented cases of post-operation emotional trauma and upheaval).
Around the same time, the immunosuppressive effect of a substance called cyclosporin (alternatively spelled cyclosporine and ciclosporin) was discovered at the earliest in 1972 and at the latest in 1976. This was followed by a series of experiments attempting to overcome the primary practical problem organ transplants were facing: tissue rejection. These experiments went well and this substance was officially approved for medical use in 1983.ftn2 It was also during the late 1970's and early 1980's that a satisfactory answer had been reached on the exact moment of death. It is no coincidence that the laws and regulations for transplants began to appear around 1980 (for example, the Spanish law on organ extraction and transplant of 1979 and the corresponding 1984 law in the United States). Thus, it was in the early 1980's, and especially from 1983, that organ transplants stopped being experimental procedures and became accepted medical therapy.ftn3 In fact, from that year and even into the 1990's, many churches of Christendom and other religions began releasing official resolutions in favor of organ transplantation.
Today it is an accepted medical treatment.
After the above mentioned September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, there was no reference to the practice of transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications. It was not until The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 that a Questions From Readers article was again published on transplants, which had this exchange:
Shortly thereafter in the medical world, in December 1967, the first successful human-to-human heart transplant was performed by Professor Christiaan Barnard at Groote Schuur Hospital in South Africa (the patient lived 18 days, which was considered successful for a high-risk experimental surgery, as such transplants were at the time).ftn1
During the following years from 1968 to 1975, there were some occasional and brief mentioning of organ transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' magazines, The Watchtower and Awake!, all of them expressing medical concerns like inherent transplant risks and the side effects of immunosuppressive drugs, and generally referenced non-Witness works and authors (the last of such appeared in the September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, page 519 under "Insight on the News" which noted documented cases of post-operation emotional trauma and upheaval).
Around the same time, the immunosuppressive effect of a substance called cyclosporin (alternatively spelled cyclosporine and ciclosporin) was discovered at the earliest in 1972 and at the latest in 1976. This was followed by a series of experiments attempting to overcome the primary practical problem organ transplants were facing: tissue rejection. These experiments went well and this substance was officially approved for medical use in 1983.ftn2 It was also during the late 1970's and early 1980's that a satisfactory answer had been reached on the exact moment of death. It is no coincidence that the laws and regulations for transplants began to appear around 1980 (for example, the Spanish law on organ extraction and transplant of 1979 and the corresponding 1984 law in the United States). Thus, it was in the early 1980's, and especially from 1983, that organ transplants stopped being experimental procedures and became accepted medical therapy.ftn3 In fact, from that year and even into the 1990's, many churches of Christendom and other religions began releasing official resolutions in favor of organ transplantation.
Today it is an accepted medical treatment.
After the above mentioned September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, there was no reference to the practice of transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications. It was not until The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 that a Questions From Readers article was again published on transplants, which had this exchange:
"Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?"
The answer began with:
"Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah's Witnesses."
This article is clearly more focused on the role of the Christian conscience, specifying that each one must make a personal decision. Some Christians, it stated, may view transplants as cannibalistic and unacceptable, while others may view them as acceptable. This position continues to be the one that Jehovah's Witnesses have today. The same article concluded:
Besides, the candidates for baptism then, as today, examine the fundamental Biblical doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses before accepting them, for which they had the books Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot (1967) and Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making (1972). Among these questions on the moral norms of Jehovah's Witnesses were covered, included the position on blood transfusions. Nevertheless, nothing in those books mentioned anything about organ transplants.
Therefore, despite what was expressed in the 1967 Questions From Readers and the medical concerns expressed in the Witnesses' magazines on organ transplants from 1968 to 1975, it itself was not grounds for disfellowshipping and therefore no one was disfellowshipped over it.
Contemporary Religious Views
On the other hand, were Jehovah's Witnesses an exception by expressing a negative viewpoint on organ transplants? Leaving aside some medical opinions against transplants since religion deals with ethical issues and frequently questions scientific advances (a current example is the case of utilizing stem-cells or not), the experiments on transplants provoked great controversy, especially at the end of the 1960's, and the religious sector played a noticeable role.
The Catholic Church, for example, presented serious objections in the past to homotransplant, or transplants among creatures of the same species (E. Chiavacci, Morale della vita fisica, EDB, Bologna. 1976: 64-81). In the Catholic book Problems of Sanitary Ethics (Problemi Di Etica Sanitaria, 1992; Ancora, Milano: 189), the Jesuit Giacomo Perico recognized that not too long ago transplants still presented "serious reservations of moral character" for Catholics. (italics original) The same thing can be said of other religions. For example, it was not until 1987-88 that Judaism had officially expressed a favorable opinion regarding transplants (see, for example, Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, "Donazione di organi. Comunicato dell'Assemblea dei Rabbini d'Italia," Ha Keillah, June 2000: 12-13; Riccardo Di Segni, "Il punto di vista dell'ebraismo," in "La donazione e il trapianto di organi e di tessuti," Punto Omega, December 2000 [anno II, n. 4]: 34).
The Muslim Religious Counsel rejected organ donation as late as 1983, although it later completely changed its position and now accepts the procedure, with some conditions.
The Gypsy community does not have its own religion, but its traditional beliefs tend to be opposed to organ donation, for they think that the body should remain intact during a year after death.
In Shintoism, the traditional religion of Japan, it used to be considered a serious crime to mutilate a dead body, according to E. Narnihira in his article "Shinto Concept Concerning the Dead Human Body." Additionally, he reports that: "To this day it is difficult to obtain consent from bereaved families for donation or dissection for medical education or pathological anatomy . . . the Japanese regard them all in the sense of injuring a dead body." Families are concerned that they not injure the itai, the relationship between the dead and the bereaved.ftn5
Therefore, a number of religious groups have opposed organ transplants at some time, and a number with time have changed their viewpoint. Similarly, while Jehovah's Witnesses always believed the conscience was the ultimate determining factor, the concerns about cannibalism were first presented in 1967 and were later reduced in significance in 1980. Although, as we have also seen, Jehovah's Witnesses were never forced to accept that opinion on cannibalism under threat of expulsion. The main concern was always about having "a clear conscience before God."
The Difference between Organ Transplants and Blood Transfusions
Highlighting this is a case of a youth whose experience was published in The Watchtower of November 15, 1969, "Appreciating Jehovah's Protection," pages 700-2. This is not a case of someone passing away, but of someone relating an experience after recovering from surgery. The question this person was faced with was not one of organ transplants but of blood transfusions, although at one point his doctor asked him if he would be willing to donate a kidney. Pointedly, his reaction is a good example of the difference between the position of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions and that regarding organ transplants. When his doctor offered him two possible procedures, one that included blood transfusions and another that did not include them, he chose the later. But when asked if he would give his consent to donate a kidney, this was his reaction:
"Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. ... While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant."
Thus, after considering what was said in 1961, 1967 and 1980, it can be seen that the conscience played the ultimate deciding factor. It was up to the individual to decide, with no disciplinary sword of Damocles dangling above. Interestingly, as pointed out above, organ transplant therapy experienced a turning point shortly thereafter in 1983, when cyclosporin was approved for medical use.
No threat of expulsion
Even though the 1967 Questions From Readers included the unfortunate comparison to cannibalism, it specified that transplants are a matter of personal decision, with no mention of disciplinary measures.
To see this matter more clearly, contrast it with the question of blood transfusion. The idea was expressed for the first time in 1945 that blood transfusions violated divine law on the sanctity of blood; nevertheless, it was not until 1961 that it was specified that the matter was of sufficient gravity so as to disfellowship from the congregations any who disregarded this divine requirement and displayed an unrepentant attitude.ftn4
Has the same thing happened with organ transplants? After the 1967 article, did a subsequent publication state that to accept a transplant was a matter of sufficient gravity to disfellowship unrepentant members?
In 1968 the book The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life was published which was a study guide that explained the fundamental teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to interested ones. This book considered the sanctity of blood in depth, but did not even mention the matter of organ transplants.
No threat of expulsion
Even though the 1967 Questions From Readers included the unfortunate comparison to cannibalism, it specified that transplants are a matter of personal decision, with no mention of disciplinary measures.
To see this matter more clearly, contrast it with the question of blood transfusion. The idea was expressed for the first time in 1945 that blood transfusions violated divine law on the sanctity of blood; nevertheless, it was not until 1961 that it was specified that the matter was of sufficient gravity so as to disfellowship from the congregations any who disregarded this divine requirement and displayed an unrepentant attitude.ftn4
Has the same thing happened with organ transplants? After the 1967 article, did a subsequent publication state that to accept a transplant was a matter of sufficient gravity to disfellowship unrepentant members?
In 1968 the book The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life was published which was a study guide that explained the fundamental teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to interested ones. This book considered the sanctity of blood in depth, but did not even mention the matter of organ transplants.
Besides, the candidates for baptism then, as today, examine the fundamental Biblical doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses before accepting them, for which they had the books Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot (1967) and Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making (1972). Among these questions on the moral norms of Jehovah's Witnesses were covered, included the position on blood transfusions. Nevertheless, nothing in those books mentioned anything about organ transplants.
Therefore, despite what was expressed in the 1967 Questions From Readers and the medical concerns expressed in the Witnesses' magazines on organ transplants from 1968 to 1975, it itself was not grounds for disfellowshipping and therefore no one was disfellowshipped over it.
Contemporary Religious Views
On the other hand, were Jehovah's Witnesses an exception by expressing a negative viewpoint on organ transplants? Leaving aside some medical opinions against transplants since religion deals with ethical issues and frequently questions scientific advances (a current example is the case of utilizing stem-cells or not), the experiments on transplants provoked great controversy, especially at the end of the 1960's, and the religious sector played a noticeable role.
The Catholic Church, for example, presented serious objections in the past to homotransplant, or transplants among creatures of the same species (E. Chiavacci, Morale della vita fisica, EDB, Bologna. 1976: 64-81). In the Catholic book Problems of Sanitary Ethics (Problemi Di Etica Sanitaria, 1992; Ancora, Milano: 189), the Jesuit Giacomo Perico recognized that not too long ago transplants still presented "serious reservations of moral character" for Catholics. (italics original) The same thing can be said of other religions. For example, it was not until 1987-88 that Judaism had officially expressed a favorable opinion regarding transplants (see, for example, Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, "Donazione di organi. Comunicato dell'Assemblea dei Rabbini d'Italia," Ha Keillah, June 2000: 12-13; Riccardo Di Segni, "Il punto di vista dell'ebraismo," in "La donazione e il trapianto di organi e di tessuti," Punto Omega, December 2000 [anno II, n. 4]: 34).
The Muslim Religious Counsel rejected organ donation as late as 1983, although it later completely changed its position and now accepts the procedure, with some conditions.
The Gypsy community does not have its own religion, but its traditional beliefs tend to be opposed to organ donation, for they think that the body should remain intact during a year after death.
In Shintoism, the traditional religion of Japan, it used to be considered a serious crime to mutilate a dead body, according to E. Narnihira in his article "Shinto Concept Concerning the Dead Human Body." Additionally, he reports that: "To this day it is difficult to obtain consent from bereaved families for donation or dissection for medical education or pathological anatomy . . . the Japanese regard them all in the sense of injuring a dead body." Families are concerned that they not injure the itai, the relationship between the dead and the bereaved.ftn5
Therefore, a number of religious groups have opposed organ transplants at some time, and a number with time have changed their viewpoint. Similarly, while Jehovah's Witnesses always believed the conscience was the ultimate determining factor, the concerns about cannibalism were first presented in 1967 and were later reduced in significance in 1980. Although, as we have also seen, Jehovah's Witnesses were never forced to accept that opinion on cannibalism under threat of expulsion. The main concern was always about having "a clear conscience before God."
The Difference between Organ Transplants and Blood Transfusions
Highlighting this is a case of a youth whose experience was published in The Watchtower of November 15, 1969, "Appreciating Jehovah's Protection," pages 700-2. This is not a case of someone passing away, but of someone relating an experience after recovering from surgery. The question this person was faced with was not one of organ transplants but of blood transfusions, although at one point his doctor asked him if he would be willing to donate a kidney. Pointedly, his reaction is a good example of the difference between the position of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions and that regarding organ transplants. When his doctor offered him two possible procedures, one that included blood transfusions and another that did not include them, he chose the later. But when asked if he would give his consent to donate a kidney, this was his reaction:
"I told him he would get a frank and thorough answer to his inquiry after we had had a family discussion of God's Word on the issue." (page 701)
It was not until the following day that he gave his response, which was negative. This clearly illustrates that the question of organ transplants was not comparable to that of blood transfusions for this reason: The donation option was not categorically prohibited (like the blood transfusion option), but one left to personal decision (or consulting with one's family, as in the case of this youth).
In Summary
The role of the individual's conscience has always been held as the deciding factor on the acceptability of organ transplants. Unlike with blood transfusions, there was never a disfellowshipping or disciplinary consequence for accepting them. While orally ingesting blood as well as blood transfusion is unacceptable, it is not so with organs.
Thus, critics should be careful not to use this issue to promote hysteria, misunderstanding, or intolerance.Footnotes1. "Heart transplantation." Wikipedia.(September 10, 2008) ( back)
In Summary
The role of the individual's conscience has always been held as the deciding factor on the acceptability of organ transplants. Unlike with blood transfusions, there was never a disfellowshipping or disciplinary consequence for accepting them. While orally ingesting blood as well as blood transfusion is unacceptable, it is not so with organs.
Thus, critics should be careful not to use this issue to promote hysteria, misunderstanding, or intolerance.Footnotes1. "Heart transplantation." Wikipedia.
2. Upton, Harriet. "Origin of drugs in current use: the cyclosporin story." 2001. The Mostly Medical Part of the World of Fungi. (September 8, 2008). "Ciclosporin." Wikipedia. (September 8, 2008) ( back)
4. "Immovable For The Right Worship." July 1, 1945: 199-201. "Questions From Readers." January 15, 1961: 63-4. (back)
Against litigious XVII
Litigious:Furthermore, when you imply that infallibility is disproven by the existence of scandal or bad clerics, you are repeating the same error as the Donatists of the fourth century. They argued that the Church’s validity depended on the moral purity of her ministers. But this was condemned by the Catholic Church, with the support of St. Augustine, who affirmed that the sacraments and the Church’s teaching authority are valid because of Christ’s institution, not the personal holiness of the minister. Otherwise, no Christian could have certainty of truth, since all men are sinners.
I cited the holy Scriptures as my authority those the scriptures plainly declare that those causing division must be isolated.
1timothy ch.1:19,20NLT"Cling to your faith in Christ, and keep your conscience clear. For some people have deliberately violated their consciences; as a result, their faith has been shipwrecked. 20Hymenaeus and Alexander are two examples. I threw them out and handed them over to Satan so they might learn not to blaspheme God."
Litigious:To suggest that the Catholic Church does not obey Scripture because it does not throw out all its sinful members is to ignore the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24–30).
Me:It is not a suggestion you manifestly are denying the plainly stated commands of the holy Scriptures, the "field" where the wheat and weeds grow alongside each other in Matthew ch.13:24-30 is the WORLD not the Church.while the brothers can't rid the Church of secret sin. Those who openly defy JEHOVAH'S Law must not be tolerated, certainly they ought not to be permitted to teach from any recognized podium. See Matthew ch.13:38
Litigious:Christ warned that the Church would contain both until the final judgment, and that premature judgment could uproot the good with the bad. This does not mean tolerating error indefinitely but calls for prudence, mercy, and fidelity to God’s timing.
Me:The brothers can't rid the Church of secret sins but open defiance of JEHOVAH’S Law must not be tolerated did you miss the pictures of the pride flags in your sanctuary ,there absolutely no excuse for that tolerating such fragrant blasphemy in what ought to be a holy space is certainly not prudent,or genuinely merciful,the church must convey JEHOVAH'S Rebuke to those who insists on obstinate defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law that is true mercy
Revelation ch.3:19NIV"Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent."
Litigious:The Catholic Church has a long and consistent history of confronting heresy and disciplining those who lead others astray. She does this through the very authority structure that many Protestants and groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses reject—a visible, apostolic, and teaching Church with the authority to bind and loose (Matthew 18:17–18). You cannot reasonably cite verses that support ecclesial discipline while rejecting the very Church through which that discipline has been historically and authoritatively carried out.
Me:The Catholic Church has moved from one extreme to the other and never with the Holy Scripture as a guide preferring to heed charismatic humans, rather than any charisma from JEHOVAH. Hence your history bloodstained hypocrisy, now she speaks out of both corners of her mouth she has a conservative faction that wishes to impose it's values at gunpoint through the state and a left wing Caucus who is also bent on hijacking the state for the purpose of imposing its mores on unbelievers and other believers. And yet she permits open defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law in her ranks,so basically it is the opposite our brother Paul's position.
5ch.12,13NIV"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” d"
We discipline those on the inside we leave those on the outside to JEHOVAH.
Litihious:Finally, there is a profound irony in appealing to these verses against false teachers while defending an organization like the Watchtower Society, which has changed numerous doctrinal positions over time—from predictions about the end of the world, to teachings about the “generation” that will not pass away, to medical doctrines like organ transplants and vaccinations. Unlike the Catholic Church, which has preserved the core of apostolic teaching for two thousand years, the Jehovah’s Witnesses offer no consistent witness to unchanging truth, and they explicitly deny Christ’s promise to preserve His Church through the Holy Spirit. This self-defeating position leaves your own tradition vulnerable to the very accusations you try to level against Catholicism.
As I have repeatedly shown you from Scripture JEHOVAH'S Servants have always had an incomplete understanding of prophecy 1Corinthians ch.13:9,Luke ch.24:21
The first century church also had to make adjustments in understanding of the fulfillment of prophecy and other matters, but then as now none of those clarifications were theologically significant, the identity of the most high God as a singular supreme person did not change ,the identity of the only priest as loyal creature whose skinless,faultless loyalty earned him the right to intercede for those putting faith in him and the God who raised him from the dead did not change,the condition of the dead and how it is related to the mechanism of the ransom, nothing of any major theological significance changed
Litigious: In conclusion, the presence of sinful individuals in the Church is not a refutation of her divine institution. Scripture, history, and Christ’s own teaching all bear witness to the reality of a Church that, though composed of fallible men, is led by an infallible God. The Catholic Church exercises correction and discipline according to Scripture, and she does so not through private interpretation, but through
the authority Christ gave to Peter and his successors. Your argument collapses when one recognizes that it is precisely the Magisterium—the Church’s God-given teaching office—that ensures the authentic and continuous application of the very scriptural principles you invoke.
Me while it is impossible to rid the Church of secret sins,the idea that thus is any excuse to tolerate those living in OPEN and obstinate defiance of JEHOVAH’S Law in the churches ranks to say nothing of allowing them teaching authority is frankly blasphemous.
Saturday, 15 March 2025
The Johanine comma demystified.
1 John 5:7 (RDB File)
The King James Version (A. D. 1611) says at 1 Jn 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Of course even this would not mean the three are the one God as trinitarians want. The word for "one" here is in the neuter form, hen, which cannot mean "one God" since "God" is always in the masculine form in NT Greek, and grammatically adjectives (such as "one") applied to it must also be masculine (heis, masculine form).
NT Greek words meaning "one":
- hen is the neuter form for "one."
- heis is the masculine form for "one."
- mia is the feminine form for "one."
When the neuter "one" (hen) is applied to persons, it means "one thing." In other words they have become united in some thing such as "purpose," "will," etc. That is why Jesus prays to the Father "that they [Jesus¡¦ followers] may be one [hen, neuter] just as we are one [hen - neuter]." - Jn 17:22. Jesus, the Father, and Jesus' followers are all one [hen, neuter] in something. Of course they are all united in the Father's will and purpose! - see the study paper ONE.
Even though Christians have one will with Jesus and the Father, it certainly is not their wills which dominate; it is the will of the Father which they make their will also. And Jesus, too, subordinates his will to that of the Father so that, therefore, their will and purpose become one: the Father's alone. ("Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." - Luke 22:42, NIV. cf. Mark 14:36.)
There is no way that Jesus would pray at Jn 17:22 that Christians may be one "just as we (Jesus and the Father) are one" if he were truly God. In that case he would be praying that these Christians become "equally God" with him and the Father!
But even more important is the fact that John did not write the words found at 1 Jn 5:7 in the KJV! And we must consider why trinitarian scholars and copyists felt compelled to add it to the Holy Scriptures.
The only other Bibles which include this passage that I am aware of are the Catholic Douay Version (A. D. 1609), the New Life Version (1993), the New King James Version (1982), and the King James II Version (1982). These last two are modern translations which have as their stated purpose the preservation of the text and traditions of the King James Version and which, therefore, translate from the discredited Received Text.
Of these four Bibles the KJIIV at least indicates the unscriptural addition of 1 John 5:7 by writing it in all italics. And buried in the Preface is the admission that 1 Jn 5:7 (among others) is not to be accepted as true Scripture.
The New Life Version, however, claims to put an asterisk (*) to mark words or passages which are "missing in some of the early writings." And it does so in such passages as Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11, but it does not do so at 1 Jn 5:7.
Since Greek was the "universal language" at the time the New Testament writers wrote and for many years thereafter, the earliest copies of the manuscripts of the New Testament were most often written in Koine Greek. Therefore the very best manuscripts (and the oldest) of New Testament writings in existence today are the most ancient (4th and 5th century) Greek manuscripts. These early Greek manuscripts were later translated into various other languages, including Latin. Although Bible translators often compare these ancient Greek manuscripts with NT manuscripts of other languages, they nearly always translate from a text that was composed from the oldest and best Greek manuscripts.
Highly respected trinitarian scholar, minister (Trinity Church), Professor (University of Glasgow and Marburg University), author (The Daily Study Bible Series, etc.), and Bible translator Dr. William Barclay states the following about this passage:
Note on 1 John 5:7
"In the Authorized Version [KJV] there is a verse which we have altogether omitted [in Barclay's NT translation]. It reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."
"The Revised Version omits this verse, and does not even mention it in the margin, and none of the newer translations includes it. It is quite certain that it does not belong to the original text.
"The facts are as follows. First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th century. The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries [most scholars date them to the 4th and 5th centuries], and it occurs in none of them. None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it. Jerome's original version of the [Latin]Vulgate does not include it. The first person to quote it is a Spanish heretic called Priscillian who died in A. D. 385. Thereafter it crept gradually into the Latin texts of the New Testament although, as we have seen, it did not gain an entry to the Greek manuscripts.
"How then did it get into the text? Originally it must have been a scribal gloss or comment in the margin. Since it seemed to offer good scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity [and since there was no good scriptural evidence for this new doctrine introduced by the Roman church in 325 A. D.], through time it came to be accepted by theologians as part of the text, especially in those early days of scholarship before the great manuscripts were discovered. [More likely it was written in the margin of an existing manuscript with the intention that future trinitarian copyists actually add it to all new copies. - RDB.]
"But how did it last, and how did it come to be in the Authorized [King James] Version? The first Greek testament to be published was that of Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus was a great scholar and, knowing that this verse was not in the original text, he did not include it in his first edition. By this time, however, theologians [trinitarians, of course] were using the verse. It had, for instance, been printed in the Latin Vulgate of 1514. Erasmus was therefore criticized for omitting it. His answer was that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript which had the words in it, he would print them in his next edition. Someone did produce a very late and very bad text in which the verse did occur in Greek; and Erasmus, true to his word but very much against his judgment and his will, printed the verse in his 1522 edition.
"The next step was that in 1550 Stephanus printed his great edition of the Greek New Testament. This 1550 edition of Stephanus was called - he gave it that name himself - The Received Text, and it was the basis of the Authorized Version [KJV] and of the Greek text for centuries to come. That is how this verse got into the Authorized Version. There is, of course, nothing wrong with it [if the trinity were really true as trinitarians like Barclay himself want!]; but modern scholarship has made it quite certain that John did not write it and that it is a much later commentary on, and addition to, his words; and that is why all modern translations omit it." - pp. 110-111, The Letters of John and Jude, The Daily Study Bible Series, Revised Edition, The Westminster Press, 1976. [Material in brackets and emphasis added by me.]
Trinitarian NT Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace agrees.https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8#_ftnref3
Highly respected (and highly trinitarian) New Testament Bible scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson writes:
"For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus [Received Text], found in no Greek MS. [Manuscript] save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century [1520 A.D.] in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome [famed trinitarian, 342-420 A. D.] did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity [ ? - - see UBS Commentary below] and Priscillian [excommunicated 380 A. D., executed 385 A. D.] has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it [in his next edition of 1522] if a single Greek MS. had it and [ms.] 34 [1520 A.D.] was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en toi ouranoi ho pater, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tei gei (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and the three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition." - p. 240, Vol. VI, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.
The highly respected (and trinitarian) United Bible Societies has published a commentary on the New Testament text. It discusses 1 John 5:5-7 as follows]:
"After marturountes "bearing witness"] the Textus Receptus [Received Text] adds the following: en to ourano, o Pater, o Logos, kai to Agion Pneuma kai outoi oi treis en eisi. (8) kai treis eisin oi marturountes en te ge. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
"(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are ms. 61 [this is ms. 34 in the earlier numbering system used by Robertson above], a sixteenth century manuscript formerly at Oxford, now at Dublin; ms. 88, a twelfth century manuscript at Naples, which has the passage written in the margin by a modern hand; ms. 629 [ms. 162, Robertson], a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican; and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand.
"(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [certainly at the Nicene Council of 325]). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
"(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A. D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A. D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vercellensis [ninth century]).
"The earliest instance of the passage is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. ....
"(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
"(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense." - pp. 716-718, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.
Notice the comments concerning this disputed passage found in the respected trinitarian reference work, The Expositor's Greek Testament:
It says in a note for 1 John 5:7 (as found in the Received Text and the KJV): "A Latin interpolation, certainly spurious. (I) Found in no Gk. MS. [Greek Manuscript] except two late minuscules - 162 (Vatican), 15th c., the Lat. Vg. [Latin Vulgate] Version with a Gk. text adapted thereto; 34 (Trin. Coll., Dublin), 16th c. (2) Quoted by none of the Gk Fathers. Had they known it, they would have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [325 A.D.]). (3) Found in none of the early versions - in Vg. but not as it [originally] left the hands of St. Jerome." - p. 195, Vol. 5, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
The very trinitarian Zondervan Publishing House has published a book by trinitarian scholars Dr. Sakae Kubo and Prof. Walter Specht entitled So Many Versions? It is an examination and critique of the most popular Bible translations of the 20th century. In the chapter devoted to the New King James Version [NKJV] this book says:
"In the original printing of the NKJV, the famous Trinitarian passage in 1 John 5:7-8a had the only textual footnote - one that advised the reader that these words "Are from the Latin Bible, although three Greek mss. [manuscripts] from the fifteenth century and later also contain them" (the note has since been revised to read "four or five very late Greek manuscripts...."). It is well known that the first and second editions of Erasmus's Greek New Testament lacked this passage because he did not find it in any Greek manuscripts available to him. He was so certain that it was a recent addition to the text that when he was criticized for not including it he promised to insert it in his next edition if anyone could produce a single [Greek] manuscript that contained it. Such a manuscript (Codex Montfortianus, #61 of the sixteenth century) was finally shown him in England, and he kept his promise in his third edition of 1522 [the early sixteenth century]. But this passage clearly had no place in the autograph [actual writings by John] of John's first epistle." - pp. 293-294.
So, even those who finally added this spurious text to the English Bible translations knew it was not written by John! But, even with many revisions and thousands of changes to the KJV, this trinitarian tampering with the word of God has remained for nearly 400 years!
The trinitarian authors of So Many Versions? (who were very biased in favor of trinitarian interpretations in other parts of their book) were so upset by this modern Bible's use of clearly spurious passages such as this that they continued:
"The brochure advertising this revision [the NKJV] gives as the purpose of the project "to preserve and improve the purity of the King James Version." To improve the purity would surely include the removal from the text of any scribal additions that were not a part of the autographs [original writing]. No devout reader of the Bible wants any portion of the sacred text as penned by the original authors removed. But neither should he want later additions, in which some passages have crept into the text, published as part of the Word of God." - p. 294, So Many Versions?, Zondervan Publ., 1983 ed.
We find that the more recent copy of the NKJV does not even contain the note that So Many Versions? mentioned above. There is no indication whatsoever in the New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers, #412B that 1 John 5:7 is anything but the original inspired writing! And, yet, the publishers and editors found room for many other notes and references in this same copy (see Hosea 1:6, 9, for example.) They also found room to furnish an explanation of the symbol they used on the title page:
"Title page logo:The triquetra (from a Latin word meaning 'three-cornered') is an ancient symbol for the Trinity. It comprises three interwoven arcs, distinct yet equal and inseparable, symbolizing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct yet equal Persons and indivisibly One God." - p. ii.
We also see that in the trinitarian-edited and published King James Version, Collins Press, 1955 (with center column of notes and references) also gives no indication whatsoever of the clear, spurious nature of 1 John 5:7! This is in spite of the fact that the original translators of 1611, themselves, and all the many revisers for the last 380 years have known that this verse was not added to the scriptures until many hundred years after John wrote this letter. Even the earlier English Bibles on which the KJV was based (and from which much was copied) did not include this spurious passage.
Trinitarian scholar Robert Young [Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible; Young's Literal Translation of the Bible; etc.] writes in his Concise Critical Commentary:
"These words are wanting [lacking] in all the Greek MSS except two, in all the oldest Ancient Versions, and in all the quotations of v. 6-8 in the ancient Fathers before A.D. 475" - Note for 1 John 5:7, Baker Book House, 1977.
Noted Lutheran scholar and Bible translator, William F. Beck (trinitarian, of course) states in a footnote for 1 John 5:7 in his The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 printing:
"Our oldest manuscripts do not have vv. 7b-8a: "in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three testifying on earth." Early in the 16th century an editor translated these words from Latin manuscripts and inserted them in his Greek New Testament. Erasmus took them from this Greek New Testament and inserted them in the third edition (1522) of his Greek New Testament. Luther used the text prepared by Erasmus. But even though the inserted words taught the Trinity, Luther ruled them out and never had them in his translation. In 1550 Bugenhagen objected to these words "on account of the truth." In 1574 [about 30 years after Luther's death] Feyerabend, a printer, added them to Luther's text, and in 1596 [in spite of the fact that scholars knew it was spurious] they appeared in the Wittenberg copies. They were not in Tyndale's or Coverdale's Bible or in the Great Bible [which were used by the KJV translators, and often copied nearly verbatim by them]."
The following modern trinitarian Bibles do not include the spurious words found in the KJV at 1 Jn 5:7: Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; American Standard Version; New International Version; New American Standard Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions); Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; Modern Language Bible; Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version; An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed); and translations by Moffatt; C. B. Williams; William Beck; Phillips; Rotherham; Lamsa; Byington; Barclay; etc.
[[Added from information found on an internet site:
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), "one of the greatest historians who ever lived" explains the reason for the removal of 1 Jn 5:7 (as found in KJV) from most modern Bibles:
"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza." - Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, IV, Edward Gibbon, p. 418.
Gibbon was defended in his findings by his noted contemporary, British scholar Richard Porson who also published conclusive proofs that the verse of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV was only first inserted by the Church into a few Latin texts around 400 C.E. - Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).
Regarding Porson's clear proof, Gibbon later said:
"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."
To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV), still unhesitatingly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God (often without so much as a note to inform the reader that nearly all respected scholars of Christendom acknowledge it as a non-scriptural late addition by uninspired trinitarian copyists).
also tells us:
Peake's Commentary on the Bible:"[v]8. The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus." - p. 1038,
Peake's Commentary on the Bible, editors M. Black and H. H. Rowley, reprint of 1964.
Of course even this would not mean the three are the one God as trinitarians want. The word for "one" here is in the neuter form, hen, which cannot mean "one God" since "God" is always in the masculine form in NT Greek, and grammatically adjectives (such as "one") applied to it must also be masculine (heis, masculine form).
NT Greek words meaning "one":
- hen is the neuter form for "one."
- heis is the masculine form for "one."
- mia is the feminine form for "one."
When the neuter "one" (hen) is applied to persons, it means "one thing." In other words they have become united in some thing such as "purpose," "will," etc. That is why Jesus prays to the Father "that they [Jesus¡¦ followers] may be one [hen, neuter] just as we are one [hen - neuter]." - Jn 17:22. Jesus, the Father, and Jesus' followers are all one [hen, neuter] in something. Of course they are all united in the Father's will and purpose! - see the study paper ONE.
Even though Christians have one will with Jesus and the Father, it certainly is not their wills which dominate; it is the will of the Father which they make their will also. And Jesus, too, subordinates his will to that of the Father so that, therefore, their will and purpose become one: the Father's alone. ("Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." - Luke 22:42, NIV. cf. Mark 14:36.)
There is no way that Jesus would pray at Jn 17:22 that Christians may be one "just as we (Jesus and the Father) are one" if he were truly God. In that case he would be praying that these Christians become "equally God" with him and the Father!
But even more important is the fact that John did not write the words found at 1 Jn 5:7 in the KJV! And we must consider why trinitarian scholars and copyists felt compelled to add it to the Holy Scriptures.
The only other Bibles which include this passage that I am aware of are the Catholic Douay Version (A. D. 1609), the New Life Version (1993), the New King James Version (1982), and the King James II Version (1982). These last two are modern translations which have as their stated purpose the preservation of the text and traditions of the King James Version and which, therefore, translate from the discredited Received Text.
Of these four Bibles the KJIIV at least indicates the unscriptural addition of 1 John 5:7 by writing it in all italics. And buried in the Preface is the admission that 1 Jn 5:7 (among others) is not to be accepted as true Scripture.
The New Life Version, however, claims to put an asterisk (*) to mark words or passages which are "missing in some of the early writings." And it does so in such passages as Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11, but it does not do so at 1 Jn 5:7.
Since Greek was the "universal language" at the time the New Testament writers wrote and for many years thereafter, the earliest copies of the manuscripts of the New Testament were most often written in Koine Greek. Therefore the very best manuscripts (and the oldest) of New Testament writings in existence today are the most ancient (4th and 5th century) Greek manuscripts. These early Greek manuscripts were later translated into various other languages, including Latin. Although Bible translators often compare these ancient Greek manuscripts with NT manuscripts of other languages, they nearly always translate from a text that was composed from the oldest and best Greek manuscripts.
Highly respected trinitarian scholar, minister (Trinity Church), Professor (University of Glasgow and Marburg University), author (The Daily Study Bible Series, etc.), and Bible translator Dr. William Barclay states the following about this passage:
Note on 1 John 5:7
"In the Authorized Version [KJV] there is a verse which we have altogether omitted [in Barclay's NT translation]. It reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."
"The Revised Version omits this verse, and does not even mention it in the margin, and none of the newer translations includes it. It is quite certain that it does not belong to the original text.
"The facts are as follows. First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th century. The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries [most scholars date them to the 4th and 5th centuries], and it occurs in none of them. None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it. Jerome's original version of the [Latin]Vulgate does not include it. The first person to quote it is a Spanish heretic called Priscillian who died in A. D. 385. Thereafter it crept gradually into the Latin texts of the New Testament although, as we have seen, it did not gain an entry to the Greek manuscripts.
"How then did it get into the text? Originally it must have been a scribal gloss or comment in the margin. Since it seemed to offer good scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity [and since there was no good scriptural evidence for this new doctrine introduced by the Roman church in 325 A. D.], through time it came to be accepted by theologians as part of the text, especially in those early days of scholarship before the great manuscripts were discovered. [More likely it was written in the margin of an existing manuscript with the intention that future trinitarian copyists actually add it to all new copies. - RDB.]
"But how did it last, and how did it come to be in the Authorized [King James] Version? The first Greek testament to be published was that of Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus was a great scholar and, knowing that this verse was not in the original text, he did not include it in his first edition. By this time, however, theologians [trinitarians, of course] were using the verse. It had, for instance, been printed in the Latin Vulgate of 1514. Erasmus was therefore criticized for omitting it. His answer was that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript which had the words in it, he would print them in his next edition. Someone did produce a very late and very bad text in which the verse did occur in Greek; and Erasmus, true to his word but very much against his judgment and his will, printed the verse in his 1522 edition.
"The next step was that in 1550 Stephanus printed his great edition of the Greek New Testament. This 1550 edition of Stephanus was called - he gave it that name himself - The Received Text, and it was the basis of the Authorized Version [KJV] and of the Greek text for centuries to come. That is how this verse got into the Authorized Version. There is, of course, nothing wrong with it [if the trinity were really true as trinitarians like Barclay himself want!]; but modern scholarship has made it quite certain that John did not write it and that it is a much later commentary on, and addition to, his words; and that is why all modern translations omit it." - pp. 110-111, The Letters of John and Jude, The Daily Study Bible Series, Revised Edition, The Westminster Press, 1976. [Material in brackets and emphasis added by me.]
Trinitarian NT Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace agrees.https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8#_ftnref3
Highly respected (and highly trinitarian) New Testament Bible scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson writes:
"For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus [Received Text], found in no Greek MS. [Manuscript] save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century [1520 A.D.] in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome [famed trinitarian, 342-420 A. D.] did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity [ ? - - see UBS Commentary below] and Priscillian [excommunicated 380 A. D., executed 385 A. D.] has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it [in his next edition of 1522] if a single Greek MS. had it and [ms.] 34 [1520 A.D.] was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en toi ouranoi ho pater, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tei gei (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and the three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition." - p. 240, Vol. VI, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.
The highly respected (and trinitarian) United Bible Societies has published a commentary on the New Testament text. It discusses 1 John 5:5-7 as follows]:
"After marturountes "bearing witness"] the Textus Receptus [Received Text] adds the following: en to ourano, o Pater, o Logos, kai to Agion Pneuma kai outoi oi treis en eisi. (8) kai treis eisin oi marturountes en te ge. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
"(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are ms. 61 [this is ms. 34 in the earlier numbering system used by Robertson above], a sixteenth century manuscript formerly at Oxford, now at Dublin; ms. 88, a twelfth century manuscript at Naples, which has the passage written in the margin by a modern hand; ms. 629 [ms. 162, Robertson], a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican; and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand.
"(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [certainly at the Nicene Council of 325]). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
"(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A. D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A. D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vercellensis [ninth century]).
"The earliest instance of the passage is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. ....
"(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
"(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense." - pp. 716-718, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.
Notice the comments concerning this disputed passage found in the respected trinitarian reference work, The Expositor's Greek Testament:
It says in a note for 1 John 5:7 (as found in the Received Text and the KJV): "A Latin interpolation, certainly spurious. (I) Found in no Gk. MS. [Greek Manuscript] except two late minuscules - 162 (Vatican), 15th c., the Lat. Vg. [Latin Vulgate] Version with a Gk. text adapted thereto; 34 (Trin. Coll., Dublin), 16th c. (2) Quoted by none of the Gk Fathers. Had they known it, they would have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [325 A.D.]). (3) Found in none of the early versions - in Vg. but not as it [originally] left the hands of St. Jerome." - p. 195, Vol. 5, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
The very trinitarian Zondervan Publishing House has published a book by trinitarian scholars Dr. Sakae Kubo and Prof. Walter Specht entitled So Many Versions? It is an examination and critique of the most popular Bible translations of the 20th century. In the chapter devoted to the New King James Version [NKJV] this book says:
"In the original printing of the NKJV, the famous Trinitarian passage in 1 John 5:7-8a had the only textual footnote - one that advised the reader that these words "Are from the Latin Bible, although three Greek mss. [manuscripts] from the fifteenth century and later also contain them" (the note has since been revised to read "four or five very late Greek manuscripts...."). It is well known that the first and second editions of Erasmus's Greek New Testament lacked this passage because he did not find it in any Greek manuscripts available to him. He was so certain that it was a recent addition to the text that when he was criticized for not including it he promised to insert it in his next edition if anyone could produce a single [Greek] manuscript that contained it. Such a manuscript (Codex Montfortianus, #61 of the sixteenth century) was finally shown him in England, and he kept his promise in his third edition of 1522 [the early sixteenth century]. But this passage clearly had no place in the autograph [actual writings by John] of John's first epistle." - pp. 293-294.
So, even those who finally added this spurious text to the English Bible translations knew it was not written by John! But, even with many revisions and thousands of changes to the KJV, this trinitarian tampering with the word of God has remained for nearly 400 years!
The trinitarian authors of So Many Versions? (who were very biased in favor of trinitarian interpretations in other parts of their book) were so upset by this modern Bible's use of clearly spurious passages such as this that they continued:
"The brochure advertising this revision [the NKJV] gives as the purpose of the project "to preserve and improve the purity of the King James Version." To improve the purity would surely include the removal from the text of any scribal additions that were not a part of the autographs [original writing]. No devout reader of the Bible wants any portion of the sacred text as penned by the original authors removed. But neither should he want later additions, in which some passages have crept into the text, published as part of the Word of God." - p. 294, So Many Versions?, Zondervan Publ., 1983 ed.
We find that the more recent copy of the NKJV does not even contain the note that So Many Versions? mentioned above. There is no indication whatsoever in the New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers, #412B that 1 John 5:7 is anything but the original inspired writing! And, yet, the publishers and editors found room for many other notes and references in this same copy (see Hosea 1:6, 9, for example.) They also found room to furnish an explanation of the symbol they used on the title page:
"Title page logo:The triquetra (from a Latin word meaning 'three-cornered') is an ancient symbol for the Trinity. It comprises three interwoven arcs, distinct yet equal and inseparable, symbolizing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct yet equal Persons and indivisibly One God." - p. ii.
We also see that in the trinitarian-edited and published King James Version, Collins Press, 1955 (with center column of notes and references) also gives no indication whatsoever of the clear, spurious nature of 1 John 5:7! This is in spite of the fact that the original translators of 1611, themselves, and all the many revisers for the last 380 years have known that this verse was not added to the scriptures until many hundred years after John wrote this letter. Even the earlier English Bibles on which the KJV was based (and from which much was copied) did not include this spurious passage.
Trinitarian scholar Robert Young [Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible; Young's Literal Translation of the Bible; etc.] writes in his Concise Critical Commentary:
"These words are wanting [lacking] in all the Greek MSS except two, in all the oldest Ancient Versions, and in all the quotations of v. 6-8 in the ancient Fathers before A.D. 475" - Note for 1 John 5:7, Baker Book House, 1977.
Noted Lutheran scholar and Bible translator, William F. Beck (trinitarian, of course) states in a footnote for 1 John 5:7 in his The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 printing:
"Our oldest manuscripts do not have vv. 7b-8a: "in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three testifying on earth." Early in the 16th century an editor translated these words from Latin manuscripts and inserted them in his Greek New Testament. Erasmus took them from this Greek New Testament and inserted them in the third edition (1522) of his Greek New Testament. Luther used the text prepared by Erasmus. But even though the inserted words taught the Trinity, Luther ruled them out and never had them in his translation. In 1550 Bugenhagen objected to these words "on account of the truth." In 1574 [about 30 years after Luther's death] Feyerabend, a printer, added them to Luther's text, and in 1596 [in spite of the fact that scholars knew it was spurious] they appeared in the Wittenberg copies. They were not in Tyndale's or Coverdale's Bible or in the Great Bible [which were used by the KJV translators, and often copied nearly verbatim by them]."
The following modern trinitarian Bibles do not include the spurious words found in the KJV at 1 Jn 5:7: Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; American Standard Version; New International Version; New American Standard Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions); Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; Modern Language Bible; Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version; An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed); and translations by Moffatt; C. B. Williams; William Beck; Phillips; Rotherham; Lamsa; Byington; Barclay; etc.
[[Added from information found on an internet site:
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), "one of the greatest historians who ever lived" explains the reason for the removal of 1 Jn 5:7 (as found in KJV) from most modern Bibles:
"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza." - Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, IV, Edward Gibbon, p. 418.
Gibbon was defended in his findings by his noted contemporary, British scholar Richard Porson who also published conclusive proofs that the verse of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV was only first inserted by the Church into a few Latin texts around 400 C.E. - Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).
Regarding Porson's clear proof, Gibbon later said:
"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."
To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV), still unhesitatingly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God (often without so much as a note to inform the reader that nearly all respected scholars of Christendom acknowledge it as a non-scriptural late addition by uninspired trinitarian copyists).
also tells us:
Peake's Commentary on the Bible:"[v]8. The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus." - p. 1038,
Peake's Commentary on the Bible, editors M. Black and H. H. Rowley, reprint of 1964.
"JOHANNINE COMMA (also known as the 'Three Witnesses'). An interpolation in the text of 1 John 5. 7 f., viz. the words in italics in the following passage from the AV: '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.' They occur in Latin MSS. from about A.D. onwards and so became established in the official Latin text of the Bible, but they are certainly not part of the original Epistle and are omitted from the RV and other scholarly modern translations. The origin of the interpolation is obscure. Traces of a mystical interpretation of the phrase about the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, applying it to the Trinity, are to be found in Cyprian and Augustine; but the earliest evidence for the insertion of a gloss in the text of the Epistle comes from a MS. of Priscillianist provenance discovered by G. Schepss at Wurzburg in 1885. Later the insertion is found in quotations in African authors. It would thus seem to have originated in N. Africa or Spain and to have found its way into the Latin Bibles used in those districts (both Old Latin and Vulgate), possibly under the stress of Arian persecution." - p. 741, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Edited by F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, reprint of 1990. ]]
WHY
did trinitarian copyists and scholars think it necessary to construct this "scripture" and actually add it to the Holy Scriptures? What, then, does this tell us about the evaluation of the rest of the "evidence" for a trinity by these very same trinitarians? Isn't this most terrible, blasphemous action by them actually an admission that the rest of the "evidence" for a 3-in-one God is completely inadequate? Why else would they do such a desperate, terrible thing?
WHAT
does this tell us about those men who first constructed the "trinity doctrine" and forced it on an unwilling Roman Church in 325 A. D. at the Nicene Council? (See HIST and CREEDS study papers.)
WHY
WHY
did trinitarian copyists and scholars think it necessary to construct this "scripture" and actually add it to the Holy Scriptures? What, then, does this tell us about the evaluation of the rest of the "evidence" for a trinity by these very same trinitarians? Isn't this most terrible, blasphemous action by them actually an admission that the rest of the "evidence" for a 3-in-one God is completely inadequate? Why else would they do such a desperate, terrible thing?
WHAT
does this tell us about those men who first constructed the "trinity doctrine" and forced it on an unwilling Roman Church in 325 A. D. at the Nicene Council? (See HIST and CREEDS study papers.)
WHY
do so many trinitarians feel it necessary to "preserve" this clearly dishonest King James Version tradition in not only the most-used King James Version itself (which has been revised many times with thousands of changes in its 400-year history while still leaving this spurious verse), but even in at least three modern translations (NKJV, KJIIV, NLV)? - an RDB File.
Thursday, 13 March 2025
Wednesday, 12 March 2025
Already ruling as kings?
1Corinthians4:8NWT2013"Are you already satisfied? Have you begun ruling as kings us? I really wish that you had begun ruling as kings, so that we might begin ruling as kings."
The true church is pursuing no 'dominion' over the present civilisation.
1Corinthians6:2,3NWT2013"Or do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you,are you not competent to try very trivial matters? Do you not know that we will judge angels..."
It is clear that some have allowed ambition to color their interpretation of this text. The context clearly indicates that this is referring to the millenium when the true church is united with her Lord in heaven, it is then that we receive dominion over angels and men(see revelation20:1-3). From the earlier cited text it is clear that our brother Paul ,and those of like mind did not consider themselves as being entitled to any dominion in the present age.
Galatians6:14NIV"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,through which the world has been crucified to me,and I to the world."
Through the sacrifice of our Lord the true Christian is dead to the present civilisation ,i.e he is of no value to its ambitions, just as it is of no concern to him. Thus when it comes to its corrupt and corrupting politics,less is more.
1John2:17NIV"The world and its desires pass away,but whoever does the will of God lives forever"
The present civilisation is doomed by divine decree. That being the case how could the Christian make common cause with human attempts to ,in effect, frustrate the divine will. For lovers of righteousness the removal of the present failed civilisation to make way for Jehovah's kingdom is the very best news see Daniel 2:44.
Jeremiah7:16NIV"So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them;do not plead with me,for I will not be listening to you."
The true church has not been set up to give any aid or comfort to doomed attempts at patching up the present civilisation. Indeed it would be cruelty of the worst sort to participate in such deception, rather we urge men to abandon such false hopes and turn to the JEHOVAH the one true hope see revelation14:6,7.
Genesis19:14NIV"So Lot went out and spoke to his sons in law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said"hurry and get out of this place,because the LORD is about to destroy the city. But his sons in law thought he was Joking."
For more than a century now the brothers have been warning Christendom that her political ambitions are going to be her doom (see Revelation17:16,17). Like Lot's sons in law Christendom as a class has chosen to take lightly the warning of Jehovah's servant ,and are thus setting themselves up for a similar outcome.
JEHOVAH The immortal God.
And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, “There will be no more delay!
1Timothy ch.1:17 NIV"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen."
Malachi ch.3:6ASV"For I, JEHOVAH, change not; therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed."
Christendom's lies notwithstanding the Lord JEHOVAH is unchangeably immortal and hence can never be mortal in whole nor in part.
If time is a finite creation then JEHOVAH has not lived forever.
In the bible time and space are abstractions and hence neither cause nor effects they merely qualify causes and effects.
The great first cause the Lord JEHOVAH is qualified as eternal having neither beginning nor end.
Tuesday, 11 March 2025
Robert Bowman's objection to the biblical view of the Holy Spirit demystified.
BOWMAN'S HOLY SPIRIT
JEHOVAH'S Witnesses know that the Bible describes God's holy spirit as a thing, not a person. It was understood by the Bible writers as God's active force. It is the impersonal agent by which God creates, for example. When he deals with man it is often through this force. He uses it to communicate, motivate, see, hear, etc. For obvious reasons trinitarians (who teach that holy spirit is a person who is equally Godwith the Father and Son, and therefore worthy of our worship as God!) do not like this.
Robert Bowman's Why You Should Believe in the Trinity -An Answer to JEHOVAH'S Witnesses, December 1993 (7th printing):
The JWs admit that the word spirit can refer to a person. Thus, they recognize that JEHOVAH is a person; they regard Jesus as a spirit, and also as a person; they hold that the devil and his demons, all evil spirits, are also persons; and they believe that some Christians will be resurrected as spirits and live in heaven as spirit persons.
It must be admitted as possible, then, that "the Holy Spirit" is a person. As we have seen, there is some evidence for this conclusion. Another important line of evidence comes from the fact that the Bible contrasts the Holy Spirit with unholy spirits. There are at least three passages in the New Testament where this contrast is explicit.
In Mark 3:22 the scribes accuse Jesus of casting out demons "by means of the ruler of the demons" (NWT), that is, with the help of the devil. After arguing that it is self-contradictory to say that Satan casts out Satan (vv.23-27), Jesus warns them, "Truly I say to YOU that all things will be forgiven the sons of men, no matter what sins and blasphemies they blasphemously commit. However, whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness forever, but is guilty of everlasting sin." Mark then adds, "This, because they were saying: `He has an unclean spirit'" (vv. 28-30 NWT).
There are two things here of note. The first is that the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed. This does not by itself prove that the Holy Spirit is a person or that he is God, since, for example, "the word of God" can be blasphemed (Titus 2:5). However, the fact that this is the worst sort of blasphemy that can be committed suggests strongly that the Holy Spirit is God himself. Also, in the parallel passage in Matthew Jesus says that "whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him..." (Matt. 12:32 NWT). Here, speaking against the person of the Son of man is contrasted with speaking against the Holy Spirit, which is considered far worse. The implication is that the Holy Spirit is a divine person. [* See note at end of paper.]
Second, and perhaps even more important, theHoly Spirit is contrasted with an unclean spirit(Mark 3:29-30). That is, to the charge that Jesus had an unclean spirit, Jesus responds that in fact he has a holy spirit - the Holy Spirit, in fact. As the unclean spirits that Jesus cast out were personal entities and not impersonal forces, so also the Holy Spirit by whose power Jesus cast them out was also a person.
Another passage containing a similar contrast is 1 Timothy 4:1, which reads, "But the Spiritexplicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitfulspirits and doctrines of demons" (NASB). The contrast between "the Spirit" and "deceitful spirits" invites the conclusion that "the Spirit" is a person, not a force; and this understanding is reinforced by the fact that "the Spirit" is said to have spoken.
This text so clearly indicates the personhood of the Spirit that the NWT mistranslates it to read, "However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances...." That this is amistranslation can be seen from the fact that the "deceitful spirits" are linked with "doctrines ofdemons," indicating that these "spirits" are actual evil beings and not merely utterances.
Another text where a similar mistranslation of "spirit" occurs is 1 John 4:1-6, where the phrase "inspired expression" is used eight times in place of the simple word "spirit" (pneuma, as in all of the above passages). What makes this significant in this context is that in the previous verse John talks about "the spirit which he gave us" (1 John 3:24 NWT), that is, the Holy Spirit. His point in 1 John 4:1, then, in warning Christians not to "believe every spirit," is that there are counterfeit spirits claiming to be from God but which are really from the devil. This implies that the Spirit whom God has given to every Christian, "the Spirit of truth" (1 John 4:6, cf. John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), is a personal spirit, just as the demonic "spirit of error" (1 John 4:6). - pp. 117-120.
Whether there is really an intended contrast between Holy Spirit and unholy spirit persons may be arguable in Mark 3:22-30. It certainly is not an intended contrast in Bowman's second scripture (1 Tim. 4:1). And if Bowman's third and final scripture (1 John 4:1-6) can only be understood as speaking of spirit persons as he insists, then this may be a proper example for his point of view. So Bowman has found two (at most) examples that might show a contrast between Holy Spirit and wicked spirit persons: Mk 3:22-30 and 1 Jn 4:1-6.
But with very little effort anyone can find numerous examples of the Holy Spirit being contrasted with or compared to or associated with things. (Also see the HS study paper.)
First, notice this example where Holy Spirit is also contrasted with "a spirit" - "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God" - 1 Cor. 2:12, KJV. TheNIV Study Bible (Zondervan, 1985) tells us in a footnote for 1 Cor. 2:12 that `the spirit of the world' is "the attitude of the sinful nature." Thus Holy Spirit is clearly contrasted here with "the spirit" which is a thing: the inclination toward sinfulness. Respected trinitarian NT Grammarian A. T. Robertson also tells us that "the spirit of the world" in this scripture is athing ("probably a reference to the wisdom of this age in verse 6 [1 Cor. 2:6, KJV]"). - p. 87, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1931.
............................................
Here are a few of the many other instances of the Holy Spirit being compared with or contrasted to things (let's even limit ourselves to "power" at first):
1. "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." - Lk 1:35, RSV. Not only is Holy Spirit compared to "power" but this is an actual parallelism!
2. "I [Jesus] am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city [Jerusalem] until you are clothed with powerfrom on high." - Luke 24:49, NASB. And just what was this power that the Apostles were to wait in the city for after Jesus' resurrection?
"And gathering [his apostles] together, [Jesus] commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised ...'for ... you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" - Acts 1:4, 5, NASB.
In other words: "Don't leave the city until you are clothed with power, that is, baptized with Holy Spirit."
Not only does Jesus tell them they will be baptized with Holy Spirit (you can only be baptized with things: water, fire, power, etc.), but he specifically identifies that Holy Spirit as power!
3. "to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man.... according to thepower that works within us." - Eph. 3:16, 20,NASB. Again power working in Christians is clearly equated with Holy Spirit working within them!
4. A. "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power;
B. how he went about doing good and healingall that were oppressed....
C. both in the country of the Jews and inJerusalem." - Acts 10:38, 39, RSV.
We can easily see how Holy Spirit is compared to or at least strongly associated with power in the first line above (A.). But look at Luke's style of writing here. Instead of the parallelism he used in Luke 1:35 above, he is clearly using the related style wherein the writer first names a thing and then gives the major component within that thing.
For example in line B. above Jesus is said to be "doing good." This is immediately coupled with the major component in the composition of his "doing good": healing.
And in line C. we are told he was doing this good in "the country of the Jews." This is immediately coupled with the major component in the composition of the "country of the Jews":Jerusalem.
And so we can see that in line A., Luke has named the Holy Spirit and (in addition to comparing it to "power") has immediately coupled it with the major component in the very composition of Holy Spirit: power. And of course (like "baptized with") one is "anointed with" things, not persons.
5. "And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." - 1 Cor. 2:4, 5, NASB.
Again Spirit is strongly associated with power in verse 4. And in verse 5 Paul tells his readers not to depend on their own wisdom but on the Holy Spirit which he has demonstrated and which is power. He also says that their faith should rest on that power of God (Holy Spirit) - compare 1 Cor. 12:9 - "through the Spirit one receives Faith" -NAB. Cf. MLB, JB, NEB.
6. "I am filled with power - with the Spirit of [JEHOVAH]" - Micah 3:8, NASB. Cf. RSV; NJB(`strength'); NRSV; NAB (`70); NAB ('91); LB;NIV; AT.
Although very closely related to power, there is a technical distinction here. We could say the Spirit is power (probably the major element of the Spirit). More accurately, however, we should say the Spirit is a force. As the JWs explain it:
" 'Power' is basically the ability or capacity to act or do things and it can be latent, dormant, or inactively resident in someone or something. `Force,' on the other hand, more specifically describes energy projected and exerted on persons or things, and may be defined as `an influence that produces or tends to produce motion, or change of motion.' `Power' might be likened to the energy stored in a battery, while `force' could be compared to the electric current flowing from such battery. `Force,' then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God's spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the Scriptures." - p. 1020, Vol. 2, Insight on theScriptures.
The distinction is not always made, but technically the Spirit is an active force from God with unlimited power as its most distinguishing characteristic.
In the Old Testament (OT) it is clear that the inspired Bible writers intended holy spirit (ruahor ruach in Hebrew) to be understood as an invisible, powerful force from God. Even many trinitarian scholars will admit that.
For example, The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976, admits: "In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power..."
And the New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984, pp. 1136,1137, says:
The Encyclopedia Americana tells us:
And the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 says:
"The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person equal in substance to the Father and the Son and not subordinate to them came at the Council of Constantinople in AD381...."
Many historians and Bible scholars (most of them trinitarians) freely admit the above truth. For example:
“On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the Spirit as a divine energy or power.” - A Catholic Dictionary.
And An Encyclopedia of Religion agrees:
"In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of the Trinity. The Spirit is conceived as an impersonal power by which God effects his will through Christ." - p. 344, Virgilius Ferm, 1945 ed.
Even the trinitarian New Bible Dictionary tells us:
And the respected (and trinitarian) New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology confirms:
"As in earlier Jewish thought,pneuma ['spirit'] denotes that power which man experiences as relating him to the spiritual realm of reality which lies beyond ordinary observation and human control. Within this broad definition pneuma has a fairly wide range of meaning. But by far the most frequent use ofpneuma in the NT (more than 250 times) is as a reference to the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, that powerwhich is most immediately of God as to source and nature." - p. 693.
"The Spirit in the earliest Christian Communities and in Acts. `Holy Spirit' denotes supernatural power, altering, working through, directing the believer .... This is nowhere more clearly evident than in Acts where the Spirit is presented as an almost tangible force, visible if not in itself, certainly in its effects. This power of the Spirit manifests itself in three main areas in Luke's account of the early church [Acts]. (a) The Spirit as a transforming power in conversion. [p. 698] .... (b) The Spirit of prophecy. For the first Christians, the Spirit was most characteristically a divine power manifesting itself in inspired utterance. The same powerthat had inspired David and the prophets in the old age (Acts 1:16; 3:18; 4:25; 28:25) [p. 699] .... (c) The Spirit was evidently experienced as a numinous power pervading the early community ....
"The Spirit in the Pauline Letters. [p. 700] .... It is important to realize that for Paul too the Spirit is a divine power whose impact upon or entrance into a life is discernible by its effects." - pp. 693-701, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.
........................................
"The emergence of Trinitarian speculations in early church theology led to great difficulties in the article about the Holy Spirit. For the being-as-person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divine power ..., could not be clearly grasped.... The Holy Spirit was viewed NOT AS APERSONAL FIGURE BUT RATHER AS A POWER" - The New Encyclopedia Britannica.
Famed trinitarian Church historian Neander notes in his History of Christian Dogma:
Here are a few other equations of holy spirit withthings:
7. The frequent comparison or contrast of the motivation of ‘flesh’ with the motivation of ‘spirit.’
Here are a few:
a) Matt. 26:41/Mk14:38
b) John 3:6
c) Ro. 8:4-13
d) 2 Cor. 7:1
e) Gal. 4:29
f) Gal. 5:17
g) Gal. 6:8
h) 1 Peter 4:6
8. “I baptize you with water for repentance, but...he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” - Matt. 3:11, RSV.
We see not only a contrast with Holy Spirit but also acomparison with Holy Spirit all in the same verse. First, Holy Spirit is contrasted with water (obviously a thing not a person)! Then it is compared to (or at least strongly associated with) fire (obviously a thing not a person - more closely related to power or energy)! And, of course, again, you “baptize” with a thing not a person!
9. Acts 11:15,16: “The Holy Spirit fell upon them ... John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” - RSV.)
10. “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” - John 3:5, RSV. Again the Spirit is closely associated with a thing!
11. “men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.... They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit....” - Act 6:3, 5, RSV.
“Stephen, full of grace and power” - Acts 6:8, NASB.
“[Stephen] being full of the Holy Spirit” - Acts 7:55,NASB.
Stephen was filled with things: faith, wisdom, grace, and the Spirit (which is again equated with power)!
12. “we serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter [of the Law].” - Ro. 7:6, NASB. Contrasts “Spirit” and “letter” (things)!
13. “If you, bad as you are, know how to give good things [e.g., fish, egg] to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” - Luke 11:13, REB. Compares human fathers giving things with heavenly Father giving Spirit.
14. “Because three there are bearing witness, the Spirit,and the water, and the blood, and the three are in one.” - 1 John 5:7, 8, literal reading from The ZondervanParallel New Testament in Greek and English.
These three are not only things, but they are “in one”!
Excerpt from my CREEDS study paper concerning 1 Jn 5:8:
15. Let’s also examine Acts 2:17,18 where God pours out [ekxeo, ekxew] from [apo] his Spirit upon all people. This should be clear enough that the Holy Spirit is a thing not a person. However, let’s look at all other uses of ekxeo used in the NT as listed in Young’sExhaustive Concordance.
(Mark 2:22 does not use ekxeo in the best manuscripts.)
John 2:15, “poured out [ekxeo] the coins of the money changers.”
Acts 2:17, 18, God “pours out [ekxeo] from [apo] His Spirit upon all people.”
Acts 2:33, “he has poured out [ekxeo] this (thing) [touto, neut.] which you see.”
Acts 22:20, the blood of Stephen was poured out [ekxeo].
Ro. 3:15, Feet swift to shed (“pour out” - ekxeo) blood.
Titus 3:6, “Holy Spirit which he [God] poured out [ekxeo] upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (RSV). [This is also translated by noted trinitarian Beck as “He poured a rich MEASURE of this Spirit on us through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Beck NT)].
Rev. 16:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 17, pour out [ekxeo] (the contents of) the bowls of the wrath of God. In other words “wrath” was being poured out.
Rev. 16:16, they poured out [ekxeo] the blood of saints and prophets.
Certainly in all other cases ekxeo (“poured out”) refers to things. It would be unreasonable to insist that this is not the case in Acts 2 (and Titus 3:6) also. We can see that if we pour out something from something, it can mean one of two things. If we said we poured out from our bowl, for instance, we actually mean we poured from a container which contained some substance (thing). We may have poured some of it or all of it. But if we said we poured out from our wine onto your roast beef, it can only mean that we poured a portion of our wine (out of some container, of course) onto the meat. We would not say we poured from our wine if we had poured it all out.
What was it that God poured out from his Spirit? Well, what did the people receive when God poured out from his Spirit? Acts 2:4, 33 tells us they received holy spirit! If, then, God poured Holy Spirit from his Holy Spirit as described in Acts 2:17, 18, it means he poured out a portion of his Holy Spirit, as rendered in the very trinitarian translations of the New American Bible (1970and 1991 editions ), the New English Bible, and theRevised English Bible. (It is similar to our pouring out some wine from our wine.) So God poured out some of his spirit here, some of it there, but certainly he still kept an infinite supply.
Also see Numbers 11:17, 25. The literal “from the Spirit” here in the inspired Hebrew Bible language (see the trinitarian The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English OldTestament, Zondervan Publ.) also means “a portion” of God’s Spirit was taken from one person and given to others. See these trinitarian translations of Num. 11:17, 25: RSV, NEB, GNB, AT, NAB, JB, NRSV, REB, NJB,Mo, and Byington. Spirit, then, is a thing that may be poured out in portions - you simply do not pour out persons in measured portions upon other persons!
I’m sure there are many more examples of the close association of Holy Spirit with things, but surely you can see that the very few examples that Bowman managed to find in his attempt to show some kind of connection between the Holy Spirit and persons are pathetic in comparison with the many, better examples of its connection with things.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Now let’s examine Bowman’s charge that the NWT hasmistranslated 1 Tim. 4:1 and 1 Jn 4:1-6. He claims that in 1 Tim. 4:1 (“paying attention to deceitful spirits[pneumasin] and doctrines of demons” - NASB) pneumamust be rendered “spirit” (not “inspired utterance”) because “deceitful spirits” are linked with “doctrines of demons.” Implying, I suppose, that it would be inappropriate to equate “things” (“utterances”) with “persons” (“demons”). And since demons are persons, then deceitful spirits must be persons. This is not the case, of course, since persons are clearly compared, contrasted, and equated with things in the Bible (and things are even personified). But in this case he is clearly wrong anyway: the link is actually between pneumasin (“inspired expressions” or “spirits”) and“doctrines” (things)!
So, according to Bowman’s reasoning, we would have to use a meaning for pneuma which is a thing to match the things it is linked with (“spirits” and “doctrines”). This would not be “Spirit” or “spirits” with the meaning of persons!
As for the similarly “mistranslated” 1 John 4:1-3, 6 in theNWT (“inspired expression”), let’s look at some trinitarian Bibles:
“Dear friends, do not believe every inspired utterance [pneuma], but test the utterances to see whether they come from God.... every inspired utterance [pneuma] that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in human form comes from God, and every inspired utterance [pneuma]that does not acknowledge Jesus does not come from God” - An American Translation, Smith-Goodspeed.
(Charles B. Williams and Dr. Goodspeed quoted here are both recognized by Bowman as “noted Biblical scholars” - p. 140, JWJCandTGOJ. In fact, on p. 126 of Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses Bowman states: “Edgar J. Goodspeed was without question one of America’s finest Greek scholars.” He also notes that Goodspeed was a trinitarian Christian - p. 129.)
Surely these trinitarian translators would have used “spirits” if they thought it was a proper translation here!
And compare 2 Thess. 2:2:
“not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy [pneuma], report or letter” - NIVSB (a footnote says: “Prophecy. Lit[erally] ‘spirit,’ denoting any inspired revelation.”)
“... some pretended spiritual revelation” - Weymouth.
“... at some oracular utterance [pneuma], or pronouncement or some letter” - New EnglishBible.
“... by any prophetic utterance [pneuma], any pronouncement, or any letter” - Revised English Bible.
“... by any prediction [pneuma] or rumor or any letter” - Jerusalem Bible. Also see LB, TEV, Mo,CBW, and Phillips.
Also see 1 Cor. 14:32 where the literal word “spirits” is understood by respected trinitarian translators and scholars as “gifts of the spirit”; “prophetic inspiration”; etc.
Bowman’s charge of “mistranslation” of pneuma by theNWT at 1 Tim. 4:1 and 1 John 4:1-6 is uncalled for. He may well disagree with it, but that does not make it a mistranslation. And the fact that any trinitarian translator (let alone the highly respected Dr. Goodspeed or Dr. Williams) would be willing to agree with the NWT’srendering here makes it not only a proper rendering but highly likely that it is the correct rendering.
So Bowman’s statement: “This text so clearly indicates the personhood of the Spirit that the NWT mistranslates it to read, ‘... the inspired utterance’” is clearly wrong.
If we wish to point out texts concerning the Holy Spirit which are clearly mistranslated, we should look at the trinitarian translations of Ro. 8:16 in RSV, NASB, NIV,CBW, JB, GNB, etc. They say: “it is the Spirit himselfbearing witness...” when the actual New Testament manuscripts they are “translating” really read, “it is the spirit ITself [auto] ”! - Cf. KJV; AT; Darby; and Webster.
The same mistranslation occurs repeatedly at John 14:17 and also at 1 Cor. 12:4, 11 in many trinitarian Bibles.
We could, therefore, rephrase Bowman’s accusation into a more honest statement: “These texts so clearly indicate the non-personhood of the Spirit that these trinitarian Bibles mistranslate them to read, “himself ....he .... him ....”
..........................................................
note from p. 1
As Bowman notes, one can blaspheme things, including the word of God (Titus 2:5: "word,"KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB; "message," JB, NJB; AT, GNB, CBW; "Gospel," NEB, REB). This also includes the name of God (James 2:7 b., Rev. 16:9), the dwelling place of God (Rev. 13:6 b: "tabernacle," KJV, NASB; "dwelling," RSV, NRSV, NEB; "tent," JB; "home," Beck).
Since the holy spirit (the impersonal force:power/direction/communication from God) comes directly (and perfectly) from God himself, then, no matter what one does against that holy spirit, it is always equivalent to doing that very thing against God himself. For example, if I spit in disgust on the letter - the impersonal thing providing direction/communication to me - from the king, it will always be understood as equivalent to my spitting on the king himself. If, on the other hand, I spit on a messenger from the king, it might not be considered such a serious offense IF I were merely expressing a dislike for the person of the messenger himself, not his message from the king.
That is why Matthew 12:32 is so important to our understanding of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit. There Jesus says to his disciples, "Anyone who says something against the Son of Man [which includes the heavenly, glorified Jesus - see f.n. #11 in the HS study] can be forgiven; but whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven - now or ever." - TEV, cf.Living Bible; also see Luke 12:10.
Now if the glorified Son of Man were actually a person who is God himself (or "equally God" in any sense), this scripture would not make sense. Anything we spoke against the person of the Son of Man in that case would have to be against the person of God himself and would have to beequivalent (at least) to speaking against the holy spirit! But if Jesus were not God himself (or equal to God) but a different person, someone might speak against him (for something he said or did or the way he looks, etc.) as a person subordinate to God and not be speaking against God.
Therefore, this scripture (and Luke 12:10) shows Jesus is not equal to God and explains that theFather alone (who produces or sends the non-personal force/communication/motivator: holy spirit) is the God we dare not blaspheme. If this were not the proper interpretation, not only would the statement about blasphemies against Christ (as equally "God") being forgiven be nonsensical, but the Most High and Only True God, the Father, would be completely ignored, and the worst blasphemy would be against only "God the Holy Spirit"! This would be completely inconsistent with Jesus' continual glorification and honor of the Father alone!
Also note Matt. 24:36 where
('... no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.' - NASB.)
Here, again, we are being told of the highest persons in all creation, and only one is the highest of them all: the Father. The holy spirit is not even mentioned - - - - Why? Because it is not a person. It is merely an extension of the Father, his power, or active force. If 'he' wereanother person who was equally God, it would have been blasphemous to ignore 'him' altogether here as Jesus has done. Only the correct knowledge of God can explain such things:
`Father, .... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' - Jn 17:1, 3; NEB.)
...............................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)