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: 

"Spirit, Holy Spirit. OT, Heb. ruah378 times ...; NT, Gk. pneuma 379 times." And "Divine power, whereruah is used to describe ... a supernatural force...." And "At its [the Old Testament's concept of ruah, God's spirit] heart is the experience of a mysterious, awesomepower - the mighty invisible force of the wind, the mystery of its vitality, the otherly power that transforms - all ruah, all manifestations of divine energy." And "at this early stage [pre-Christian] of understanding, God's ruah was thought of simply as a supernatural power (underGod's authority) exerting force in some direction."

The Encyclopedia Americana tells us: 

"The doctrine of the Holy Spirit [as aperson who is God] is a distinctly Christian [?] one.... the Spirit of JEHOVAH [in the OT] is the active divine principle in nature. .... But it is in the New Testament [NT] that we find the bases of the doctrine of the Spirit's personality." And "Yet the early Church did not forthwith attain to a complete doctrine; nor was it, in fact, until after the essential divinity of Jesus had received full ecclesiastical sanction [in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea] that thepersonality of the Spirit was explicitly recognized, and the doctrine of the Trinity formulated." Also, "It is better to regard the Spirit as the agency which, proceeding from the Father and the Son, dwells in the church as the witness andpower of the life therein." - Vol. 14, p. 326, 1957 ed. 

And the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 says:

"The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated 'spirit') is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard....

"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:

"It is important to realize that for thefirst Christians the Spirit was thought of in terms of divinepower." - p. 1139, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984.

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: 

"Though Basil of Caesarea [late 4th century A.D. Church leader] wished to teach the divinity [deity] of the holy spirit in his church, he only ventured to introduce it gradually."

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:

“For there are three who bear witness [this is the only place in the entire Bible where we find a ‘trinitarian’ formula that even mentions the word ‘three’!], The SPIRIT [which is God according to trinitarians], and the water, and the blood: and THE THREE [ARE] IN ONE.” - ASV.

This is by far the clearest “trinitarian” statement in the entire Bible!! It is the only one that even mentions “three” (although by using trinitarian-style “evidence” we could easily work in “seven” at Rev. 4:5 or “four” at Rev. 4:6 which has 4 living creatures “in the midst of” God’s throne). And to top it all off it says “THE THREE ARE IN ONE.” (The ASV renders “agree in one,” but the word “agree” is not really found in the Bible manuscripts here. It literally says “the three are in [or ‘into’] one.” - Compare the MLB: “the three are one.”) 

And who are these three equal “persons” (who bear witness) who are equally God himself,the holy spirit (since the three are all “in one” with the holy spirit)? Why these three “persons”

 who are equally God (according to trinitarian doctrine) are the Spirit, the water, and the blood!  

(Notice how verse 9 also shows that these three are “really” God: the witness of these three is really the witness of God!)

Obviously this scripture is really saying that three things are “witnesses” to (or “testify to”) Jesus being the Christ, the Son of God: “the Spirit (Greek, to pneuma: singular, neuter - athing) and the water (Greek, to udwr: singular, neuter - athing) and the blood (Greek, to aima: singular, neuter - athing).” And these three things are “ONE” (Greek, hen: singular, neuter - ‘one thing’) in that they all “witness” to the same fact that Jesus is Christ. The Spirit “testified” to Jesus being the Christ by visibly descending upon him at his baptism. “Water symbolizes Jesus’ baptism, and the blood symbolizes his death” (NIVSB f.n.) These 3 things, then, all “testified” to the same thing. But they are all things! 

 

 This is why trinitarian copyists in earlier centuries actually addedthe words of 1 John 5:7 as found in theKJV to the inspired words of John in the translations and copies of manuscripts they were making. They were desperate to find actual scriptural evidence of the trinity concept. And since it didn’t honestly exist, they had to manufacture it!

Of course an honest, clear statement of a trinity would be: “For there are three persons who are the only true God: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the three are the One [heis,singular, masculine] God.” (You see, it isn’t a difficult statement for anyone to write, let alone an inspired Bible writer. Even “God is three” would be honest, clear evidence, but you will never see even that in the inspired scriptures. In fact, “three” is never used in any description concerning God. And the number “three,” in strong contrast to such numbers as “one,” “seven,” “twelve,” and “forty” has little or no importance in the religious content of the Bible! - pp. 565, 566, Vol. 3, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ. - - -and see the IMAGE study paper, f.n. #8.) But 1 John 5:8 is, by far, the closest the Bible evercomes to such a statement! 

Therefore, this clearest of trinitarian “proofs” (1 John 5:8) shows “conclusively” that if the Holy Spirit is God, His two equal partners are not Jesus and Jehovah, but the “persons” of “the Holy Water” and “the Holy Blood”! 

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:

“Dearly beloved, stop believing every so-called spiritual utterance  [pneuma].... Every spiritual utterance[pneuma] which owns that Jesus Christ has come in human form comes from God... This is the way to distinguish a true spiritual utterance[pneuma] from one that is false.” - The NewTestament in the Language of the People, Charles B. Williams.

“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.)

“Dearly loved friends, don’t always believe everything you hear just because someone says it is a message from God [pneuma]: test it first to see if it really is..... the way to find out if theirmessage is from the Holy Spirit is to ask.... If so, then the message [pneuma] is from God” - Living Bible.

 

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.

“It is for prophets to control prophetic inspiration [‘spirits’]....” - NEB; REB.

“The gift of proclaiming God’s message[‘spirits’] should be under the speaker’s control” -GNB.

“14:32 control of prophets. Prophecy (and tongues as well) was not an uncontrollable emotional ecstasy. Paul insists that these gifts [literally ‘spirits,’ meaning ‘gifts of the spirit’] should be controlled by the recipients themselves.” - NIVSBfootnote for 1 Cor. 14:32.

 

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.)

...............................................

Today woolly mice : tomorrow woolly mammoths?

 

The motor home of tomorrow today?

 

A gold plated house of cards? III

Darwinism vs. Design

 

Conditional immortality :a recent history.

  During the Reformation, Luther, "Tyndale", and Wycliffe supported the view of conditional immortality. In 1520 in response to Bull of Pope Leo X Luther rejected the doctrine of natural immortality.

The British Evangelical Alliance ACUTE report states the doctrine is a "significant minority evangelical view" that has "grown within evangelicalism in recent years". In the 20th century, conditional immortality was considered by certain theologians in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Proponents of conditional immortality ("conditionalists") point to Genesis 2 and Revelation 22, where the Tree of Life is mentioned. It is argued that these passages, along with Genesis 3:22–24 teach that human beings will naturally die without continued access to God's life-giving power.

As a general rule, conditionalism goes hand in hand with annihilationism; that is, the belief that the souls of the wicked will be destroyed in Gehenna (often translated "hell", especially by non-conditionalists and non-universalists) fire rather than suffering eternal torment. The two ideas are not exactly equivalent, however, because in principle God may annihilate a soul which was previously created immortal. While annihilationism places emphasis on the active destruction of a person, conditionalism places emphasis on a person's dependence upon God for life; the extinction of the person is thus a passive consequence of separation from God, much like natural death is a consequence of prolonged separation from food, water, and air.

In secular historical analysis, the doctrine of conditional immortality reconciles the ancient Hebrew view that humans are mortal with the Christian view that the saved will live forever.

Belief in forms of conditionalism became a current in Protestantism beginning with the Reformation, but it was only adopted as a formal doctrinal tenet by denominations such as early Unitarians, the churches of the English Dissenting Academies, then Seventh-day Adventists, Christadelphians, the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Mortalist writers, such as Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan, have often argued that the doctrine of natural (or innate) immortality stems not from Hebrew thought as presented in the Bible, but rather from pagan influence, particularly Greek philosophy and the teachings of Plato, or Christian tradition. Bishop of Durham N.T. Wright noted that 1 Timothy 6:15–16 teaches "God… alone is immortal," while in 2 Timothy 1:10 it says that immortality only comes to human beings as a gift through the gospel. Immortality is something to be sought after (Romans 2:7) therefore it is not inherent to all humanity.

These groups may claim that the doctrine of conditional immortality reconciles two seemingly conflicting traditions in the Bible: the ancient Hebrew concept that the human being is mortal with no meaningful existence after death (see שאול, Sheol and the Book of Ecclesiastes), and the later Jewish and Christian belief in the resurrection of the dead and personal immortality after Judgment Day.

The divine law and bloodVIII:swimming against the flow.

 

From the spring 2013 edition of "stanford Medicine"

 

AGAINST THE FLOW
WHAT’S BEHIND THE DECLINE IN BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS?

by Sarah C.P. Williams
Illustration by Jonathon Rosen

One day in 2011, an ambulance pulled up to the Stanford emergency room and paramedics unloaded a man in his 30s who had crashed his motorcycle. He was in critical condition: Tests showed dangerously low blood pressure, indicating that around 40 percent of his blood was lost. And an ultrasound revealed that the blood was collecting in his belly, suggesting that one or more of his abdominal organs was the source of the blood loss.

Paul Maggio, MD, a trauma surgeon and co-director of critical care medicine at Stanford Hospital & Clinics, sped the patient into the operating room. But he made sure that the technicians prepping his operating room took the time to set up one key piece of equipment, called an intraoperative cell salvage device, which is now commonly used in trauma cases. As the patient lay on the operating table and Maggio made the first cuts into his abdomen, suction devices slurped up the loose blood, directing it away from the surgery site through tubes. But instead of leading to a container bound for disposal, the tubes led to the salvage device.

The ATM-sized machine spun the blood to separate its components, cleaned it of any debris that had been suctioned up from the abdomen and sent it back out into fresh bags. From there, the blood was shunted right back to the patient’s body, through intravenous tubes poking into his veins. The cell salvage device has been around for decades, but only recently has evidence emerged that autotransfusion — giving patients their own blood instead of blood from donors — leads to better surgery outcomes. As a result, the use of the machines has gone from extremely rare to commonplace. Today, hospitals that have the machines use them in many scheduled abdominal and heart surgeries and routinely in trauma cases involving massive bleeding.

“Autotransfusing this patient spared him from getting more banked donor blood and from all the risks associated with it,” says Maggio of the motorcycle crash victim. He turned out to have an injury to his spleen, which Maggio repaired. In all, around 2 liters of blood were collected from the patient’s abdomen, processed through the salvage device, and transfused back into his body.

Blood transfusions involve routing a needle into one of a patient’s veins — most often in an arm — and attaching a thin tube to the needle. Blood flows through the tube directly into the patient’s blood vessels. Ten years ago, a patient like Maggio’s would most likely have had a transfusion of blood donated by volunteers at the Stanford Blood Center. But over the past decade, a growing body of research has revealed that in hospitals around the world, donated blood is used more often, and in larger quantities, than is needed to help patients — both in operating rooms and hospital wards.

Some of the research has been conducted by physicians working with patients who refuse donated blood on religious grounds; other findings have come from the front lines of the war in Afghanistan, where blood is hard to transport; and some studies have been inspired simply by the rising cost of blood and a desire to save resources. Some findings are new, and others, like studies by Stanford’s Tim Goodnough, MD, a hematologist and the director of transfusion services, are years old but only recently being noticed. The takeaway message from all is the same: While blood is precious and continues to save lives, its use can be minimized and fine-tuned to optimize patients’ health and reduce costs.

The American Medical Association brought attention to the subject last fall at its national summit on the overuse of five medical treatments. Blood transfusions were on the list (along with heart stents, ear tubes, antibiotics and inducing birth in pregnant women).

“From the clinical standpoint, I’m not really thinking about resources or cost,” says Maggio, who’s also an assistant professor of surgery. “I’m thinking about giving the patient the best care.” Donated blood carries risks, albeit very slight, of infection and setting off an immune reaction. But research is also showing that even when these drastic outcomes are avoided, there’s something else about donated blood — which scientists don’t fully understand — that could slow recovery time or increase complications.

While autotransfusion for trauma patients is growing, and guidelines for blood transfusions are changing in response to this new research, altering the protocols that doctors have been using for so many years is a slow process.

 

Changing the routine

At Stanford, it took an innovative new program that used alerts on doctors’ computer systems to enforce fewer blood transfusions

But the push paid off: Blood use in the operating rooms, emergency rooms and hospital wards of both Stanford and the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital has declined by 10 percent in just a few years. At Packard Children’s alone, 460 transfusions and $165,000 were saved in one year, according to a pilot study conducted Feb. 1, 2009, through Jan. 31, 2010.

‘There’s this idea ingrained in the culture of medicine that people will die if they don’t have a certain level of blood, that blood is the ultimate lifesaver.’
– Patricia Ford, MD, Founder and Director of Pennsylvannia Hospital’s Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at Penn Medicine

“I think we’re probably still giving too much blood in some of these situations,” says Maggio. “But we hope that physicians are becoming better informed about when to give blood.”
People most often need blood transfusions when they’re in one of three situations: They lose blood from a major surgery that’s been scheduled for weeks or months; they lose blood in a way that their body won’t be able to replace, such as a blood cancer that shuts down the body’s ability to make blood cells; or they lose blood during a more sudden trauma — either an external wound or internal bleeding.
“For that first group of patients, scheduled for elective surgery, if you can plan ahead, you should be able to avoid using blood,” says Goodnough, a professor of pathology and of medicine. In those patients, drugs can boost a patient’s own blood production ahead of surgery, blood can be collected from a patient ahead of time to re-infuse later, precautions can be taken to prevent sudden blood loss, or autotransfusion machines like the cell salvage device can be set up. “Where we still need a national blood inventory is for patients who can’t plan ahead,” says Goodnough.
In the cases where physicians continue to give blood when it might not be needed, it’s often because they can’t imagine not doing everything they can to help a patient — and blood has always been viewed as having far more benefits than risks in almost any population of patients. But now, that risk-benefit analysis is changing.
“There’s this idea ingrained in the culture of medicine that people will die if they don’t have a certain level of blood, that blood is the ultimate lifesaver,” says Patricia Ford, MD, founder and director of Pennsylvania Hospital’s Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at Penn Medicine. “And that’s true in some specific situations, but for most patients in most situations it’s just not true.” Ford’s center is one of the oldest and largest in the country that specializes in treating patients without donated blood; dozens of others have been created over the past decades but mostly at a smaller scale.

Going bloodless

 

Every year, Ford treats or operates on around 700 Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose religion prohibits transfusions of blood that is not one’s own. Since 1996, she has been fine-tuning ways to give these patients the best care as well as ways to apply these techniques to the broader population.

“Many physicians I talked to at the beginning had this misperception that a lot of patients just can’t survive without receiving blood,” says Ford. “I may have even thought that myself to some degree. But what I rapidly learned was you can care for these patients by just applying some easy strategies.”

In fact, a study published in August 2012 by researchers at the Cleveland Clinic concluded that Jehovah’s Witness patients recovered better from heart surgery than patients who received blood transfusions. It’s the longest study conducted on such patients — the researchers followed them for up to 20 years. The Jehovah’s Witness patients had higher five-year survival rates, fewer heart attacks following the surgery and fewer complications including sepsis and renal failure. The better outcomes might not have been due to the absence of transfusions but to differences in care received — the patients were more likely to be treated for low blood levels before surgery by receiving iron supplements and vitamins, and every patient’s surgery included use of an intraoperative cell salvage device. The findings suggest that these methods employed for bloodless surgeries could help patients beyond the Jehovah’s Witness community.

At Pennsylvania Hospital, Ford has discovered that, for scheduled surgeries, one of the best ways to avoid the need for blood transfusions is to test patients’ levels of hemoglobin — the protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen — well before their surgery. If the levels are low, then the patient can take vitamin K and iron supplements, which help the body produce more blood cells and help red blood cells more efficiently carry oxygen throughout the body. The practice of testing for low red blood cell levels, or anemia, is now beginning to spread from specialized clinics like Ford’s to other hospitals around the country.

“Testing for anemia was just not on people’s radar screens, because they knew that they could always give the patient blood,” says Ford. Now, many doctors consider testing a patient’s blood cell levels just as important as testing their heart and lung health before surgery. This shift is supported by studies such as an October 2012 analysis in the Annals of Thoracic Surgery of the outcomes of more than 17,000 heart surgeries, which found an increase in stroke, death during surgery and death after surgery when patients were anemic before surgery.

At Stanford, standard pre-surgery tests include blood counts for patients who are expected to lose large amounts of blood, says Goodnough. If anemia is suggested by the results, clinicians aim to manage the condition before surgery.

At Penn, Ford also emphasizes the conservation of blood during surgery, often by using an intraoperative cell salvage device. Patients can also donate blood in the weeks leading up to a scheduled surgery and their own saved blood — called an autologous donation — can be used for a transfusion if necessary. In the 1980s, Goodnough studied the usefulness of autologous donations in different patient population groups and pushed for its broader usage. It’s now considered a mainstream way of reducing the need for donated blood. “It sounds like a mundane concept now, but it was quite progressive when we first started looking at it,” says Goodnough.

Among Ford’s lessons with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, she says that perhaps her most important has been that there’s no magic hemoglobin number that tells doctors when a patient will start exhibiting signs of anemia. Typically, doctors consider hemoglobin above 12 to be normal, and hemoglobin below 7 or 8 to indicate the need for a blood transfusion. But Ford and a growing number of other doctors think those numbers could be pushed down further, a change that would require new studies for many to adapt.

“It’s not unusual for me to see a patient who has a hemoglobin of 5 and they look as healthy as anyone walking down the street,” says Ford. Of course, there also can be patients who become sick with much higher hemoglobin levels, but Ford would like to see more doctors treating blood levels based on symptoms, not a number. Goodnough agrees: “It’s really hard to demonstrate at what level of hemoglobin a transfusion will help a patient,” he says. “And we’re increasingly seeing that for most patients, hemoglobin has to be exceptionally low to have effects.” But it depends more on the patient’s health and risk factors, he says. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution.

On the adventures of a zombie hunter.

 

Your robot butler is almost ready?

 

"..nor the Son."

  Mark ch.13:32 NASB"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." 

Our Trinitarian (and Modalist) friends wave away the obvious problem this verse creates for their doctrine by claiming that Jesus was speaking from the Son's then human standpoint.

 But is this view in harmony with the context of the verse itself ,lets have a look.The verse begins 

"But of that day and hour no one knows.."  

Obviously meaning no human knows (BTW was Jesus merely saying that no human at that time knew or that no human has ever known and will ever know.), thus if Jesus was speaking purely in terms of the Son's then human existence surely this part of the verse would have covered that. 

BTW :some trinitarians claimed that Jesus reclaimed the human body that he was supposed to have sacrificed upon his resurrection,which would mean that he is still human which, according to them, must mean that he is still not omniscient.

Then to illustrate the utter futility of anyone on earth attempting to calculate the 'day or hour' he continues.

",not even the angels of heaven.."

(again did Jesus mean that no angel presently knows or that no angel has ever and will ever know?) ,now, having made it clear that heaven itself was in the dark re:the Father's determination in this matter does it make sense for Jesus to belabor Earth's ignorance? Certainly what no angel knows no human would.

Why then not allow the verse to interpret itself 

"nor the Son,But the Father ALONE."  

i.e not even this eldest sibling in Jehovah's family of servants has ever known or will ever know. 

Acts1,6,7NASB " So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;"

Though his apostles were understandably curious about Jehovah's timing re:the Kingdom the resurrected (hence superhuman) Jesus indicated that the Father had chosen to keep the decision to himself.

 It does not seem that Jesus felt belittled by his Father's decision so it's odd that there are those who seem determined to take offense in his behalf.

 The bottom line then 

John ch.14:28 KJV "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. " 

PS. 0ne more thing,a good question deserving of a straight answer would be ,why does the Holy Spirit not know the day or the hour,better yet why is the Holy Spirit not even mentioned in this verse.I mean the verse (quite literally) mentions everyone else. 

On the arrow of time

 

On the myth of scientific objectivity.

 Scientific “Decadence” and the Myth of Objectivity

David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer

Writing here yesterday about the mischaracterization of 437-million-year-old scorpion fossils, paleontologist Günter Bechly used an apt but unexpected word to describe evolutionary thinking. It isn’t just mistaken. It reflects a state of “decadence”: 

In today’s science world it is no longer sufficient to objectively describe some nicely preserved ancient fossils. You must overinterpret the evidence and oversell their importance with a fancy evolutionary narrative. And you do not have to hesitate to be really bold with your claims, because neither the scientific reviewers nor the popular science media will care if your claims are actually supported by the evidence. This system is broken. It was broken by the pressure to publish or perish, by the pressure of public relation departments to generate lurid headlines, and by the pressure of the idiotic paradigm that nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution.

“By the Wayside”

Under these circumstances, “Good science falls by the wayside.” Now neuroscientist Michael Egnor comments over at Mind Matters on decadence in a completely different scientific field: medicine and medical ethics. Abortion advocates have long advanced the falsehood that babies in the womb feel less pain than we do or no pain at all. The truth is the exact opposite: “An unborn child with an immature brain probably experiences pain more intensely than an individual with a mature cortex.”

Perhaps the most disturbing damage that the abortion lobby has done to our society — aside from the systematic killing of tens of millions of innocent human beings — is the corruption of science in the name of ideology. Nowhere is this corruption more obvious than in the misrepresentation of the neuroscience of fetal pain perception.

A new article in the Journal of Medical Ethics titled Reconsidering Fetal Pain (open access) is a welcome correction to the abortion lobby’s systematic misrepresentation. The authors, one of whom is an abortion advocate, reviewed the literature on the perception of fetal pain and came to the conclusion that there is clear scientific evidence to support the view that unborn children feel pain as early as 13 weeks of gestation.

This should not have come as a surprise, since doctors who work with newborns and premature babies routinely observe that they respond with screams to a needle prick that an adult would barely register. 

Dr. Bechly calls it “decadence.” Dr. Egnor calls it “corruption.” It’s one and the same thing: whereas, according to widespread legend, scientists just objectively sift facts, in reality ideological ax-grinding is common and probably worse than it ever was. Remember, what Bechly and Egnor are describing isn’t limited to a stray scientist here or there. It is systematic. Hence the state of decadence.

Corrosive or Worse

As the new “Long Story Short” video from Discovery Institute on homology puts it, “Scientists are just like everyone else: people. And we can be uncritical of things that we want to believe.” 

That’s a charitable way of putting it. In one way, scientists aren’t like “everyone else”: that is, because of the enormous prestige they enjoy, the impact of their being “uncritical of things that [they] want to believe” is tremendous. And it can be quite corrosive, quite malign. It affects how the rest of us think about the origins of life, about the nature of reality — ultimate questions — and about how to treat the most vulnerable members of humankind, the unborn in the womb, whether with care or savage disregard.

These are reasons for applying special scrutiny and an extra degree of skepticism — they are reasons for thinking your own thoughts rather than be spoon-fed — when considering what “Scientists Say.”

For more on the culture of contemporary science, see Egnor’s post“Jeffrey Epstein and the Silence of the Scientists.”

A superstar?

 

Physicists close in on a cryptid?

 

JEHOVAH is both a singular person and a singular God

  Genesis ch.6:6ASV"Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am JEHOVAH, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments:

I (first person SINGULAR) He is both the supreme person and the supreme God.

Exodus ch.18:11ASV"Now I know that Jehovah is greater than all gods; yea, in the thing wherein they dealt proudly against them." 

Deuteronomy ch.3:24ASV"O Lord JEHOVAH, THOU hast begun to show thy servant THY greatness, and THY strong hand: for what god is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to THY works, and according to THY mighty acts?"

He is always address in singular personal pronouns for a reason

Deuteronomy ch.6:10ASV"And it shall be, when JEHOVAH thy God shall bring thee into the land which HE sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee, great and goodly cities, which thou buildest not,"

1Samuel ch.12:17ASV"Is it not wheat harvest to-day? I will call unto JEHOVAH, that HE may send thunder and rain; and ye shall know and see that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of JEHOVAH, in asking you a king."

2Samuel ch.7:22ASV"Wherefore THOU art great, O JEHOVAH God: for there is none like THEE, neither is there any God besides THEE, according to all that we have heard with our ears." 

JEHOVAH is both the greatest person and the greatest God.

1Chronicles ch.16:25ASV"For great is JEHOVAH, and greatly to be praised: He also is to be feared above all gods."

Psalms ch 83:18ASV"That they may know that [d]THOU ALONE, whose name is JEHOVAH,

Art the Most High over all the earth."

The name JEHOVAH is not Just another name as some disrespectfully claim it is the only name deservedly and exclusively borne by the greatest person in all of reality and is the only name ever described as Holy in all of scripture. It occurs more frequently in the bible than the the next five most common names/titles combined.

JEHOVAH Has the greatest zeal for his name.

Malachi ch.1:11ASV "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [j]shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place [k]incense [l]shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [m]shall be great among the Gentiles, saith JEHOVAH of hosts."

But who is this Greatest person who worthily bears this hallowed and greatest of names.

Luke ch.1:32ASV"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the LORD God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: "

The God and Father of Jesus Christ is the most high GOD. Logically if there are two other people who are as great as the God and Father of Jesus he is simply not the most high. The God And Father of Jesus is the lone owner of the sacred name,the Lord JEHOVAH.