Stephen E. Jones

Jesus is Jehovah Quotes: Unclassified quotes: January 2009

[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; JiJ unclassified & classified quotes] [My Jesus is Jehovah! blog]

The following are quotes added to my Jesus is Jehovah unclassified quotes database in January 2009.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.

2009: Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec.

1/01/2009
"[qanah] ... To ERECT, to set upright ... hence- (1) to found, create [see note below] the heaven and the 
earth, Gen. 14:19,22; men, Deut. 32:6; Psa. 139:13; Prov. 8:22 ... (2) to acquire for oneself, Prov. 4:7; 15:32; 
16:16; 19:8; Ruth 4:9, 10; to obtain, Gen. 4:1 (... to possess, to be owner). Specially - (3) to buy ... Gen. 
25:10; 47:22, etc.; also to redeem (people out of captivity), Isaiah 11:11; Neh. 5: 8. [Note. There does not 
appear to be any sufficient ground for ascribing the sense of to create to this verb; in all the passages 
cited for that sense, to possess, appears to be the true meaning ... NIPHAL, to be acquired, bought, Jer. 
32:15, 43. HIPHIL, Zec. 13:5 ... to buy .... But ... Ezek. 8:3, is for ... exciting the jealousy or anger (of God). " 
(Tregelles, S.P., transl., "Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures," 
Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1949, Eighth printing, 1967, p.735. Emphasis original)

1/01/2009
"The New World Translation bears no translator's name and is presented as the anonymous work of the 
`New World Translation Committee.' Other members of that committee were Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder 
and George Gangas. Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible 
languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years at the University of 
Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew." (Franz, R., "Crisis of Conscience," [1983], Commentary 
Press: Atlanta GA, Fourth edition, 2002, Third printing, 2007, p.56)

1/01/2009
"Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. (NIV) This is a text that 
should definitely be included when sharing with a Jehovah's Witness the abundant scriptural evidence that 
Jesus Christ is God. Reading it in a number of translations may prove helpful: `For in him dwelleth all the 
fulness of the Godhead bodily' (KJV). `For in Christ there is all of God in a human body" (LB) and `in him all 
the fullness of deity is resident in bodily form' (The Bible in Living English, translated by Steven T. 
Byington, published by the Watchtower Society, 1972). The Watchtower's New World Translation 
attempts to water down the message of this verse by rendering it: `because it is in him that all the fullness of 
the divine quality dwells bodily.' But the reference edition (footnote) and the interlinear version of their Bible 
both admit that the Greek word they translate as `divine quality' literally means `godship.'" (Reed, D.A., 
"Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1986, Thirty-first printing, 2006, 
p.98. Emphasis original)

1/01/2009
"[Col 2:8-9] Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the 
philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of 
the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality [Lit., 
`godship.' Gr., the·o'te·tos] dwells bodily." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "New World translation of 
the Holy Scriptures," [1961], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 1984, p.1418)

2/01/2009
"Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, `I AM WHO I AM.' And he said, `Say this to the people of Israel, `I AM 
has sent me to you:' ` (RSV) Christians universally recognize that Jesus Christ was claiming to be the Deity 
when he referred to himself as. the I AM: `The Jews then said to him, `You are not yet fifty years old, and 
have you seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, `Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am' (John 
8:57-58, RSV). Even Jesus' enemies recognized what he was saying. The next verse tells us that, when they 
heard this, `they took up stones to throw at - him...' (v. 59). The unbelieving Jews viewed Jesus' claim to be 
the I AM as blasphemy, a crime for which they wanted to stone him to death. Jehovah's Witnesses, 
however, teach that Jesus Christ is really just Michael the archangel and that Christ never claimed to be 
God. So, to make Scripture agree with their doctrine, they change the reading of both verses in their Bible. 
The Watchtower Society's translation says, `This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, `I SHALL 
PROVE TO BE has sent me to you' (Exod. 3:14, NWT), and `Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came 
into existence, I have been' (John 8:58, NWT). So, in the JW Bible, Jesus' words appear to have no 
connection with Exodus 3:14. But you do not have to be a Greek and Hebrew scholar to prove that the 
Watchtower Society has twisted these verses. Jehovah's Witnesses' own study Bibles prove that Jesus was 
claiming to be the I AM. Their 1984 large-print New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures with 
References has a footnote on Exodus 3:14, admitting that the Hebrew would be rendered into Greek as `Ego 
eimi'-I am.' And their 1985 Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures reveals that Jesus' words 
at John 8:58 are the same: `ego eimi' (footnote), `I am' (interlinear text)." (Reed, D.A., "Jehovah's Witnesses 
Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1986, Thirty-first printing, 2006, pp.26-27. Emphasis 
original)

2/01/2009
"[Pr ]8:22-31. Wisdom's role in creation. The section is ushered in by the emphatic The Lord. Here is 
wisdom's prime credential, presented with wonderful artistry. First, wisdom is what Yahweh as Creator 
counted primary and indispensable. Second, wisdom is both older than the universe, and fundamental to it. 
Not a speck of matter (26b), not a trace of order (29), came into existence but by wisdom. Third, wisdom is 
the spring of joy, for joy breaks out whenever (30b) and wherever (31) the Creator's wisdom is exercised. Joy 
of creating and joy of existence - the Maker's and the creature's delight - both flow from the exercise of 
divine wisdom; that is, from God's perfect workmanship. The important and keenly-debated question arises: 
Is wisdom here conceived as a hypostasis (i.e. an actual heavenly being) or as a personification (i.e. an 
abstraction, made personal for the sake of poetic vividness)? To the present commentator, the context 
points to the latter." (Kidner, D., "Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Press: London, 
1964, Reprinted, 2003, p.78. Emphasis original)

2/01/2009
"Not only does the next chapter proceed immediately to a fresh portrait of wisdom, in a new guise (as a great 
lady (9:1-6) whose rival (13-18) is certainly no hypostasis), but the present passage makes excellent sense at 
the level of metaphor: i.e. as a powerful way of saying that if we must do nothing without wisdom, God 
Himself has made and done nothing without it. The wisdom by which the world is rightly used is none other 
than the wisdom by which it exists. But if this is how the poem should be read in its immediate context, there 
is also a wider setting. The New Testament shows by its allusions to this passage (Col. 1:15-17; 2:3; Rev. 
3:14) that the personifying of wisdom, far from overshooting the literal truth, was a preparation for its full 
statement, since the agent of creation was no mere activity of God, but the Son, His eternal Word, Wisdom 
and Power (see also Jn. 1:1-1 4; 1 Cor. 1:24,30; Heb. 1:1-4)." (Kidner, D., "Proverbs: An Introduction and 
Commentary," Tyndale Press: London, 1964, Reprinted, 2003, pp.78-79)

2/01/2009
"[Pr 8:]22. Possessed (Vulg., AV, RV), or created (LXX, Targ., RSV)? The Arians (who denied the deity 
of Christ) appealed to LXX's `created', to prove that Christ, the Wisdom of God, was not eternal. But our 
concern must be with the word's normal meaning, and with the general sense of the passage. Elsewhere this 
verb (qana) predominantly means `get', and hence `possess' (see, e.g., Pr. 4:5, 7, where wisdom is the 
object, as here). Of its 84 Old Testament occurrences, only six or seven allow the sense `create' (Gn. 14:19,22; 
Ex. 15:16; Dt. 32:6; Pss. 74:2; 139:13; Pr. 8:22), and even these do not require it. The derived nouns still more 
strongly emphasize possession. ... To sum up: this word expresses getting and possessing, in ways that 
vary with the context. Goods are possessed by purchase, children by birth (cf. our idiom, to `have' a baby), 
wisdom - for mortals - by learning. And wisdom for God? To say that at first He lacked it and had to create or 
learn it, is both alien to this passage and absurd. It comes forth from Him; the nearest metaphor is that of 
birth (cf. 24,25). But possessed is perhaps ... the most serviceable word for the translator here, leaving the 
succeeding verses to speak more explicitly." (Kidner, D., "Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary," 
Tyndale Press: London, 1964, Reprinted, 2003, pp.79-80)

2/01/2009
"[Pr 8:22] In the beginning of his way (AV, RV). Beginning can mean what is first in importance (cf. 1:7) 
or first in sequence (cf. Gn. 1:1), and the two senses often coexist. The latter seems to predominate here (cf. 
`before ... before', 25) ; but there is no preposition, and the phrase could mean `As the beginning...'. Way 
is gratuitously changed to work by RSV ... " (Kidner, D., "Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary," 
Tyndale Press: London, 1964, Reprinted, 2003, p.80)

2/01/2009
"To the casual reader Matthew's `other Mary' [Mt 27:61; 28:1], Mark's `Salome' [Mk 15:40; 16:1] and John's 
`Clopas' [Jn 19:25] seem obscure and rather unimportant figures. To the careful student, however, they 
prove exceptionally interesting. A key to their identification is to be found in the descriptions of the women 
at the crucifixion given by Matthew, Mark and John.' Matthew and Mark (whose accounts at this point run 
parallel) identify three women watching at a distance, while John mentions Jesus' mother and three other 
women standing by the cross. It is natural to suppose that the same three women are referred to in each case 
and that they came forward with the Lord's mother to support her in the final farewell. If the women are the 
same in each case, we get the following descriptions: 1. Mary Magdalene - so called in all three gospels. 2. 
One called by Matthew: `the mother of the sons of Zebedee' [Mt 27:56]. by Mark: `Salome' [Mk 15:40] . by 
John: `Jesus' mother's sister' [Jn 19:25]. Mary, called by Matthew: `the mother of James and Joseph' [Mt 
27:56] ... or `the other Mary'. [Mt 27: 61] by Mark: `the mother of James the younger and of Joses' [Mk 15:40] 
or `the mother of Joses' [Mk 15:47] or `the mother of James' [Mk 16:1]. by John: `the wife of Clopas' [Jn 
19:25]. ... This means that Salome is, on the one hand, the sister of the Lord's mother - that is to say, Jesus' 
aunt; and, on the other hand, mother of the two leading disciples, James and John. This makes John first 
cousin to Jesus." (Wenham, J.W., "Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Stories in Conflict?," Paternoster: 
Exeter UK, 1984, Reprinted, 1987, pp.34-35)

3/01/2009
"This `only-begotten Son of God' took the `first-born's position' in all of God's creation, and rightfully so. As 
the `beginning of [God's] generative power' he would excel all future creation in dignity, strength and 
wisdom. He was the embodiment of God's wisdom, and because of this the words of Proverbs 8:22-31, where 
Wisdom is portrayed as speaking to us as learners, are generally applied to the `only-begotten Son of God,' 
as follows: `Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of 
long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. When there 
were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged 
with water. Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth 
as with labor pains, when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust 
masses of the productive land. When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a horizon upon 
the face of the watery deep, when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of 
the watery deep to be strong, when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass 
beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, then I came to be beside him as a master 
worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 
being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men." 
(Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Things in Which it is Impossible for God to Lie," Watchtower Bible & 
Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 1965, pp.121-122)

3/01/2009
"Notice that here wisdom personified is spoken of, not as the beginner or originator, but as the `beginning' 
of God's way. Wisdom personified is also the `earliest' of God's achievements. According to this language 
the `only-begotten Son of God' was the `beginning' of God's way and there was no achievement by God 
earlier than this `only-begotten Son.' This language is like what is said in Revelation 3:14. In fact, Proverbs 
8:22 is quoted from in Revelation 3:14, where the glorified Son of God in heaven says regarding himself: 
`These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by 
God.' According to his own words he was the `beginning' (not, beginner) of God's creation, so that God's 
creating of creatures began with this Son." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Things in Which it is 
Impossible for God to Lie," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 1965, p.122)

4/01/2009
"The woman of Revelation 17-the one sitting upon the beast-is the great harlot. She is gorgeously arrayed 
and excessively adorned. She is `gilded with gold'. She is clothed with purple and scarlet, for she sits as 
queen. Precious stones and pearls are her ornaments. Kings of the earth are her paramours. Worldly people 
are made drunk with the wine of her whoring. In her hand she holds a cup filled with abominations: the 
unclean things pertaining to her whoredom. On her forehead, possibly on a band attached to her forehead, 
is a name written: Babylon the great, the mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the earth. Not only 
are her paramours drunk, she herself is also drunk, namely with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. John 
wonders greatly. He does not grasp the meaning of this picture, so the angel explains its meaning. This 
harlot, evidently, is Babylon' (17:5,18; 19:2,3)." (Hendriksen, W., "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation 
of the Book of Revelation," Tyndale Press: London, 1940, Reprinted, 1966, p.167)

4/01/2009
"We reject the following views: a. That Babylon is the literal city which will be rebuilt on the bank of the 
river Euphrates. b. That Babylon is the apostate church ... But the Babylon of Rev. 17-19 is the harlot not the 
adulteress. Besides, Rev. 18 - especially verses 11, 13-suits the description of the city of the world; it can 
hardly be said to harmonize with the idea of the false church. Finally, the entire Old Testament basis in the 
prophets suggests the world as opposed to God's people. We consider the `false church' conception quite 
impossible. c. That Babylon is Rome. This is true but too restricted. .. We need not discuss the view that 
Babylon symbolizes the Roman Catholic church." (Hendriksen, W., "More than Conquerors: An 
Interpretation of the Book of Revelation," Tyndale Press: London, 1940, Reprinted, 1966, p.167) 

4/01/2009
"The question is, what does Babylon represent ? In order to arrive at the correct view with respect to the 
symbolical meaning of this figure, we must bear in mind, first of all, that Babylon is called the great harlot 
[Babylon is never called moichalis, `adulteress'; always porne, `harlot'. Hence, Babylon was never the 
Lamb's wife. She is not the false church]. In other words, the symbol indicates that which allures, tempts, 
seduces and draws people away from God. Secondly, we must remember that this harlot is a worldly city, 
namely, Babylon. It reminds us of pleasure-mad, arrogant, presumptuous Babylon of old. The description of 
this symbolical Babylon of Revelation 17-19 also recalls to our mind that heathen centre of wickedness and 
seduction, Tyre. Observe the striking similarity between Revelation 17-19 and Ezekiel 27, 28. Moreover, 
when we study the catalogue of goods found in Babylon (18:11 ff.) it becomes evident that the symbol has 
reference to a great industrial and commercial metropolis. Babylon, therefore, must indicate the world as a 
centre of industry, commerce, art, culture, etc., which by means of all these things seeks to entice and 
seduce the believer, that is, to turn him away from God. It symbolizes the concentration of the luxury, vice, 
and glamour of this world. It is the world viewed as the embodiment of `the lust of the flesh, the lust of the 
eyes, and the vainglory of life' (1 Jn. 2:16). Thirdly, Babylon thus viewed is past, present and future. Its form 
changes; its essence remains. Let us remember that the harlot, Babylon, is very closely associated with the 
beast, so closely, in fact, that she is said to be sitting on the beast (17:3). The beast is the entire antichristian 
persecution movement throughout history, embodied in successive world empires. The beast, very clearly, 
is past, present, and future. (Read Rev. 17:8-10.) Therefore we conclude that the harlot also represents the 
world as the centre of antichristian seduction at any moment of history." (Hendriksen, W., "More than 
Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation," Tyndale Press: London, 1940, Reprinted, 1966, 
pp.167-168)

4/01/2009
"That the harlot, Babylon, was present in one form or embodiment in John's day is clear from Revelation 
17:9: `the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits'. Here the reference is clearly to Rome. The 
imperial city attracted to her pleasures the kings of the nations, the rulers in every domain of life, art, 
industry, commerce, etc. (See Rev. 17:2.) The apostle sees the Rome of his own day, filled with vanity, luxury 
and pleasure. It was a pleasure-mad city. Even the saints were torn to pieces in its circuses for the 
amusement and entertainment of the public. The harlot was drunk with the blood of the saints (17:6). When, 
in Revelation 18:4., the admonition is given: `Come forth my people, out of her, and have no fellowship with 
her sins', that command was intended not only for people living close to the end of the world's history, but 
also for believers in John's own day and age; indeed, for believers in every age. Babylon, then, is the world 
as the centre of seduction at any moment of history, particularly during this entire present dispensation." 
(Hendriksen, W., "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation," Tyndale Press: 
London, 1940, Reprinted, 1966, pp.168-169)

4/01/2009
"That the harlot, Babylon, was present in one form or embodiment in John's day is clear from Revelation 
17:9: `the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits'. Here the reference is clearly to Rome. The 
imperial city attracted to her pleasures the kings of the nations, the rulers in every domain of life, art, 
industry, commerce, etc. (See Rev. 17:2.) The apostle sees the Rome of his own day, filled with vanity, luxury 
and pleasure. It was a pleasure-mad city. Even the saints were torn to pieces in its circuses for the 
amusement and entertainment of the public. The harlot was drunk with the blood of the saints (17:6). When, 
in Revelation 18:4., the admonition is given: `Come forth my people, out of her, and have no fellowship with 
her sins', that command was intended not only for people living close to the end of the world's history, but 
also for believers in John's own day and age; indeed, for believers in every age." (Hendriksen, W., "More 
than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation," Tyndale Press: London, 1940, Reprinted, 
1966, pp.168-169)

4/01/2009
"Babylon, then, is the world as the centre of seduction at any moment of history, particularly during this 
entire present dispensation. The harlot, Babylon, always opposes the bride, new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:9 ff.). 
Both symbols are introduced by `one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls', but they are opposites. 
For Babylon's fall refers not only to the final destruction of the world, viewed as a centre of antichristian 
culture and seduction, at the moment of Christ's second coming, but also to the demolition of every 
preceding concentration of worldly enticement. Babylon's fall takes place throughout history but especially 
on the great day of final judgment. The fall of the last great Babylon-Babylon in its final form-coincides with 
the coming of our Lord unto judgment." (Hendriksen, W., "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the 
Book of Revelation," Tyndale Press: London, 1940, Reprinted, 1966, p.169)

4/01/2009
"According to the figure employed, the harlot holds in her hand a golden cup. A golden cup entices one to 
drink; for one expects the most precious drink from such a precious vessel. Yet the cup contains nothing but 
abominations, the unclean things pertaining to the woman's whoredom. Whatever is used by the world in 
order to turn believers away from their God is in this cup: pornographic literature, sports in which one 
becomes completely absorbed, luxuries, worldly fame and power, the lusts of the flesh, and so on. Let 
everyone make his own list. It includes things that are bad in themselves as well as things which become 
bad because one does not view them as a means but as an end in themselves: art for art's sake, etc. The 
angel tells John the mystery of the. woman and of the beast that carries her (verses 7-18). Observe the close 
association between beast (the empire of the world) and woman (seduction). This is true in a two fold sense: 
first, worldly people drink the wine of the woman's whoredom and indulge in her pleasures; secondly, the 
world as the centre of persecution and the world as the centre of luxury, antichristian culture, and pleasure 
always work in close co-operation in opposing the Church. The prophet Balaam was aware of this, so he 
advised Balak to make use of the cunning art of deception in order to ensnare and destroy Israel (Nu. 31:16; 
Jude 11; Rev. 2:14). In the days of John, Rome not only persecuted the Church with the sword but also tried 
to entice believers by means of the allurements of the great city. The same holds true even today. 
Antichristian governments do not destroy every church building; they change some of them into places of 
worldly amusement! " (Hendriksen, W., "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of 
Revelation," Tyndale Press: London, 1940, Reprinted, 1966, p.169) 

4/01/2009
"From time to time, there have arisen from AMONG THE RANKS OF JEHOVAH'S PEOPLE those who .. say 
that it is sufficient to READ THE BIBLE EXCLUSIVELY ... But ... through such `BIBLE READING,' they have 
reverted right back to the ... DOCTRINES THAT ... CHRISTENDOM'S CLERGY WERE TEACHING .." (WT, 
8/15/81, p.29. My emphasis)

5/01/2009
"It is probably a true instinct that has led many readers to suppose that Joseph is the source of the narrative 
in Matthew and Mary the source of that in Luke. In the latter case, the indications seem to be particularly 
clear. In the Lucan infancy narrative, Mary's inmost thoughts are revealed-not, it is true, in an indelicate or 
verbose manner, but in a way quite consonant with the character that is here attributed to the mother of the 
Lord. And the whole narrative is presented from her point of view. Of course these facts might conceivably 
be explained by the inherent importance of Mary for the events that are here narrated, an importance which 
would appeal to some other narrator as well as to Mary herself. And yet such an explanation does not seem 
to go quite the whole way. There is such delicacy in the touches by which Mary's part in the events is set 
forth, and such intimacy in the glimpses which are granted into her inmost soul, that the sympathetic reader 
will hardly be able to rid himself of the conviction that this narrative is derived mediately or immediately from 
her. ... Of course, even then the exact course of the transmission will still be in doubt. Did the author of the 
Gospel himself come into contact with the mother of Jesus? Even that view is perhaps not altogether 
impossible. Or was it an earlier writer of a Jewish Christian source who received the essentials of the story 
from Mary's lips? That view again is perfectly possible .... The womanly touch in the narrative is perhaps 
adequately explained by the supposition that the information came ultimately from Mary, whether or not it 
passed through other lips before it was finally put into literary form. What really stands firm is that the 
narrative is written from Mary's point of view, and therefore in some sort claims to come from her. We see no 
reason whatever to reject that claim." (Machen, J.G., "The Virgin Birth of Christ," [1930], Baker: Grand 
Rapids MI, 1974, Fourth printing, pp.200-201)

5/01/2009
"In Matthew, on the other hand, everything is presented from the point of view of Joseph. His scruples it is 
that are silenced by the appearance of the angel; he is the one who receives heavenly guidance as to the 
movements of the mother and the child. Was he, then, the ultimate source of this narrative as Mary was the 
source of the narrative in Luke? The objection to this view, as has been intimated above, is that Joseph does 
not appear in connection with the public ministry of Jesus and therefore may be supposed to have died at 
an early time. Could he then have delivered his testimony before he died? There are perhaps difficulties in 
the way of an affirmative answer. During the earthly life of Jesus, the virgin birth-even supposing it was a 
fact-would, as we shall see, naturally remain secret. To have spoken of it would have given rise only to 
slander and misunderstanding. If, then, Joseph died long before the resurrection of Jesus and the founding 
of the Church in Jerusalem, to whom could he have handed on his marvellous tale? Must he not have died 
before his secret had passed his lips? How then can we have in Mt. i-ii a narrative of Joseph independent of 
that testimony of Mary which is preserved in the first two chapters of Luke? The objection is perhaps not 
quite conclusive. In the first place, may not Joseph have committed the story to writing before he died? That 
is perhaps not quite beyond the bounds of possibility. In the second place, may he not have confided his 
testimony to some one who could be trusted not to make it known until the proper time? That the persons 
chosen for such confidence should have been the younger brethren of Jesus is indeed unlikely in itself, as 
well as out of accord with their attitude as it is recorded in the Gospels. ... Of course it remains possible that 
Mary is the source of both our infancy narratives. Even then the difference between the two accounts may 
conceivably be explained. Joseph no doubt confided in Mary; he told her of his experiences as they are 
recorded for us in Mt. i-ii: Mary would then include these experiences of Joseph in what she told to 
sympathetic ears when finally she broke the silence that she had previously preserved. But some of her 
hearers might be interested in some features of what she told, and some in others. Relatives of Joseph, for 
example, would be interested in those features that concerned Joseph and that were based ultimately upon 
his testimony; and thus it is those features, especially, which they would transmit. In this way an early 
divergence in the tradition might well come to pass. (Machen, J.G., "The Virgin Birth of Christ," [1930], 
Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1974, Fourth printing, pp.201-202) 

6/01/2009
"The title `the Alpha and the Omega' carries the same thought as `the first and the last' and `the beginning 
and the end' when these terms are used with reference to Jehovah. Before him there was no Almighty God, 
and there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever 
vindicated as the one and only Almighty God.-Compare Isa 44:6." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 
"Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1: Aaron-Jehoshua," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, 
1988, pp.80-81. Emphasis original)

6/01/2009
"Who is this wonderful God? Some persons say his name is Jesus. Others say he is a Trinity, although the 
word `trinity' does not appear in the Bible. According to the teaching of the Trinity, there are three persons 
in one God, that is, there is `one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.'" (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 
"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth," [1982], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: 
Brooklyn NY, Second edition, 1989, p.39)

6/01/2009
"How Is the Trinity Explained? THE Roman Catholic Church states: `The Trinity is the term employed to 
signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion ... Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: `the 
Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.' In 
this Trinity ... the Persons are co- eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.' - The 
Catholic Encyclopedia. Nearly all other churches in Christendom agree. For example, the Greek Orthodox 
Church also calls the Trinity `the fundamental doctrine of Christianity,' even saying: `Christians are those 
who accept Christ as God.' In the book Our Orthodox Christian Faith, the same church declares: `God is 
triune... . The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God.' Thus, the Trinity 
is considered to be `one God in three Persons.' Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for 
eternity." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?," Watchtower Bible & 
Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 1989, Reprinted, 2006, pp.3-4. Emphasis original)

6/01/2009
"Successful argument is based on three main principles: First, get a plain, clear statement of the proposition, 
both sides agreeing as to what the argument is about. In this way you can come to grips with one another 
and not beat the air. ... Second, get definitions of terms clear. Be sure each understands just what the other 
means by his use of a term or expression. For example, someone may say, `You don't believe in the doctrine 
of the trinity.' Now, the trinity doctrine means that there are three persons in one God: God the Father, God 
the Son and God the Holy Ghost, all coequal and coeternal." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Qualified 
to be Ministers," [1955], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, Revised, 1967, pp.197-198)

6/01/2009
"Trinity Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian 
Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said 
to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. 
Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three `Persons' are not separate and distinct individuals 
but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that 
Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 
"Reasoning from the Scriptures," [1985], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 
Second edition, 1989, p.405. Emphasis original)

8/01/2009
"New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950 ... There are more than 230 insertions of 
Jehovah, in spite of the Society's admission that `no early surviving Greek manuscript of the "New 
Testament" contains the personal name of God' (The Watchtower, March 1, 1991, p. 28). ... But not all 
appearances of the word Lord (kyrios) are rendered `Jehovah' in the New World Translation. If, for example, 
the Watchtower Society had consistently followed its reference J14, then it would have translated 1 
Corinthians 12:3 as `nobody can say: "Jesus is Jehovah!" except by holy spirit.' Instead, in this instance the 
New World Translation retains the customary rendering `Jesus is Lord!'-since the Watchtower applies the 
name Jehovah only to God the Father." (Reed, D.A., "Jehovah's Witness Literature: A Critical Guide to 
Watchtower Publications," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1993, pp.98-100. Emphasis original)

8/01/2009
"Of the various revisions to the New World Translation over the years none have been of great doctrinal 
significance except that of 1971, which changed `let all God's angels worship him' in Hebrews 1:6 to say `let 
all God's angels do obeisance to him.' (From 1879 through 1953 the Watchtower Society taught that Jesus 
should be worshiped. In 1954 the teaching was reversed, but the Bible verse was not altered to agree until 
1971.)" (Reed, D.A., "Jehovah's Witness Literature: A Critical Guide to Watchtower Publications," Baker: 
Grand Rapids MI, 1993, p.103)

8/01/2009
"The Watchtower Society has never disclosed the identities of the men of the secretive New World 
Translation committee, but former Governing Body member Raymond Franz identifies them in his book Crisis 
of Conscience as Nathan Knorr, Frederick Franz, Albert Schroeder, and George Gangas, of whom he 
indicates that only his uncle Fred had any qualifications: two years of Greek at the University of Cincinnati, 
plus self-taught Hebrew." (Reed, D.A., "Jehovah's Witness Literature: A Critical Guide to Watchtower 
Publications," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1993, p.103)

8/01/2009
"New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1961 The New Testament and Old Testament installments 
released beginning in 1950 were revised and combined into this one-volume Bible. ... Several new editions 
have been published over the years featuring different type sizes, bindings, marginal notes, footnotes, 
maps, and appendix articles. A second revision to the text itself was released in 1970, a third in 1971, and a 
fourth in 1984. The only revision of major doctrinal significance was the change made in 1971 at Hebrews 
1:6, where the rendering was changed from `let all God's angels worship him' to read `let all God's angels do 
obeisance to him.' (From 1879 through 1953 the Watchtower Society taught that Jesus should be worshiped. 
In 1954 the teaching was reversed, but the Bible verse was not altered to agree until the revision of 1971.)" 
(Reed, D.A., "Jehovah's Witness Literature: A Critical Guide to Watchtower Publications," Baker: Grand 
Rapids MI, 1993, p.115. Emphasis original)

8/01/2009
"The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1969 Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic 
Diaglott proved an effective tool in the hands of Watchtower apologists from the time of C. T. Russell 
onward. But its renderings did not agree fully with the New World Translation, most notably in the matter of 
the Society's insertion of the name Jehovah throughout the New Testament. (Jehovah appears in the 
Diaglott at Matthew 21:9 and in seventeen other places-far short of its more than 230 occurrences in the 
New World Translation.) So, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures was produced. 
It features the Westcott and Hort Greek text, with a literal English translation below each word, and the New 
World Translation in a parallel column. .. although the New World Translation column renders Jesus' words 
at John 8:58 as, `Most truly I say to You, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been' (emphasis 
added), the literal interlinear reading shows Jesus said, `I am.' And, although The Watchtower of July 1, 
1986, quotes an authority to establish that `the title ho theos [the God, or God] ... is not applied in the 
N[ew] T[estament] to Jesus' (p. 31), The Kingdom Interlinear Translation at John 20:28 belies this 
statement by showing that the Greek for ho theos and the literal translation `the God' does apply to Jesus. 
In 1985 a revised edition of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures was released." 
(Reed, D.A., "Jehovah's Witness Literature: A Critical Guide to Watchtower Publications," Baker: Grand 
Rapids MI, 1993, pp.124-125. Emphasis original)

8/01/2009
"New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1981 ... Not actually a revision in the true sense, the 1981 
edition of the New World Translation is the product of entering the 1970 and 1971 versions into a computer, 
comparing variations between the two, and selecting the preferred reading. An article in the December 15, 
1981, Watchtower magazine describes in detail how this Bible was produced by use of the new 
technologies of computer typesetting and offset printing." (Reed, D.A., "Jehovah's Witness Literature: A 
Critical Guide to Watchtower Publications," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1993, p.161. Emphasis original)

8/01/2009
"`Let Your Kingdom Come,' 1981 ... Of special interest, however, is the `Appendix to Chapter 14' 
beginning on page 186, which attempts to establish 607 B.C. as the time of Jerusalem's desolation by the 
Babylonians, in spite of the fact that secular historians generally assign a date twenty years later. This is an 
important issue for Jehovah's Witnesses, because their belief that Christ returned invisibly as King in A.D. 
1914 is based on their calculations that this would happen 2520 years after Jerusalem's desolation. (The 
mathematical arguments are found on page 135.) So, if 607 B.C. is wrong, then A.D. 1914 is wrong. And if 
1914 is wrong, then the entire system of Watchtower eschatology based on that date falls like a house of 
cards." (Reed, D.A., "Jehovah's Witness Literature: A Critical Guide to Watchtower Publications," Baker: 
Grand Rapids MI, 1993, pp.161-162. Emphasis original)

8/01/2009
"Sing Praises to Jehovah, 1984 Musically the book of 225 songs released in 1984 differs from earlier 
versions in that it provides notations for guitar. But more significant is the different doctrinal emphasis 
commented on in the Watchtower Society's book Revelation-Its Grand Climax At Hand! `In the songbook 
produced by Jehovah's people in 1905, there were twice as many songs praising Jesus as there were songs 
praising Jehovah God. In their 1928 songbook, the number of songs extolling Jesus was about the same as 
the number extolling Jehovah. But in the latest songbook of 1984, Jehovah is honored by four times as many 
songs as is Jesus. This is in harmony with Jesus' own words: `The Father is greater than I am.' (John 14:28) 
Love for Jehovah must be preeminent, accompanied by deep love for Jesus and appreciation of his precious 
sacrifice and office as God's High Priest and King. (p. 36)' This comment reveals that Watchtower leaders are 
well aware that the organization's doctrinal shifts over the years have made it far less Christ centered, and 
that this changed emphasis is reflected in its songs of worship. But what the quotation fails to reveal is that 
the shift away from Jesus Christ has been accompanied by a growing emphasis on the organization, which 
itself takes on the role of a corporate false Christ obeyed as master and looked to for salvation." (Reed, D.A., 
"Jehovah's Witness Literature: A Critical Guide to Watchtower Publications," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1993, 
pp.166-167. Emphasis original) 

8/01/2009
"The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (revised), 1985 ... The 1985 revised edition 
employs the 1984 revision of the New World Translation in the English column. It also stands half an inch 
shorter than the original and is closer to pocket size. A notable change in the interlinear column is found at 
Colossians 2:9, where theotes is given the rendering `divinity' instead of `godship' as in the first edition. 
The appendix is also greatly expanded with additional articles that support the Watchtower Society's 
unusual renderings." (Reed, D.A., "Jehovah's Witness Literature: A Critical Guide to Watchtower 
Publications," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1993, p.169. Emphasis original)

9/01/2009
"[Mal] 4:1. Malachi had used the imagery of a refining fire (3:2) but now speaks of a destructive fire. The 
day will be one of tropical heat, when parched vegetation suddenly catches fire and dry fields become one 
vast oven in which even the roots of the plants are reduced to ash. The arrogant and all evildoers who 
refuse to repent will find no escape. 2. The metaphor now changes. The Lord addresses personally you 
who fear my name (cf. 3:16), that is, those who have repented and long to see His cause triumph and right 
prevail. For them the sun which caused the heath fire (verse 1) will be the sun of righteousness, bringing 
health and healing to those who love righteousness (Is. 57:18,19). Like calves released from their stall into 
the sunlight they will leap about with sheer relief and exuberance that right has triumphed. Only here in the 
Bible does the term `sun of righteousness' occur, and the imagery of wings representing the sun's rays 
recalls the winged sun disc which appears on many Near Eastern monuments. It is a particularly apt figure to 
claim for the Lord of hosts as He reveals Himself as judge in all His power." (Baldwin, J.G., "Haggai, 
Zechariah and Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries," Inter-
Varsity Press, Leicester UK, 1972, Reprinted, 2003, p.250)

10/01/2009
"To those Christians in Thyatira, Jesus now speaks heartwarming words. They also encourage anointed 
Christians today: `And to him that conquers and observes my deeds down to the end I will give authority 
over the nations, and he shall shepherd the people with an iron rod so that they will be broken to pieces like 
clay vessels, the same as I have received from my Father.' (Revelation 2:26, 27) Indeed a wonderful 
privilege! This authority that anointed conquerors receive at their resurrection is a sharing with Jesus in 
wielding the `iron rod' of destruction against the rebellious nations at Armageddon. At best, the nuclear 
firepower of those nations will sputter like a wet firecracker when Christ dashes his enemies to pieces as he 
would vessels of clay. - Psalm 2:8, 9; Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-13, 15.' (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 
"Revelation: Its Grand Climax At Hand!," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, 1988, pp.52-53)

10/01/2009
"A Son, a Male The appointed time for the nations to rule without interruption by God came to an end in 
1914. (Luke 21:24) Then, right on time, the woman bears her child: `And she gave birth to a son, a male, 
who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his 
throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should 
feed her there a thousand two hundred and sixty days.' (Revelation 12:5, 6) The child is `a son, a male.' 
Why does John use this double expression? He does it to show the child's suitableness, his competence for 
ruling the nations with adequate power. It also emphasizes how momentous, how joyous an occasion this 
birth is! It plays a key role in bringing the sacred secret of God to a finish. Why, this male child will even 
`shepherd all the nations with an iron rod'! Now, does that expression sound familiar? Yes, Jehovah 
promised prophetically regarding Jesus: `You will break them with an iron scepter, as though a potter's 
vessel you will dash them to pieces.' (Psalm 2:9) It was also prophesied regarding him: `The rod of your 
strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, saying: `Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.' (Psalm 110:2) 
Therefore, the birth seen by John closely involves Jesus Christ. No, it is not Jesus' being born of a virgin 
back before the first century of our Common Era; nor could it refer to Jesus' being raised again to spirit life in 
33 C.E. Furthermore, it is no transmigration. Rather, it is the birth of God's Kingdom in 1914 as a reality, with 
Jesus - now in heaven for close to 20 centuries enthroned as King. - Revelation 12:10." (Watchtower Bible & 
Tract Society, "Revelation: Its Grand Climax At Hand!," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, 
1988, pp.179-180)

10/01/2009
"Very soon Christ and his heavenly angels will take action to rid the earth of all present worldly 
governments. (Daniel 2:44; Revelation 17:14) The Bible says that he has `a sharp long sword, that he may 
strike the nations with it, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron.' (Revelation 19:11-16)." (Watchtower 
Bible & Tract Society, "You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth," [1982], Watchtower Bible & Tract 
Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, Second edition, 1989, p.68) 

10/01/2009
"The insolent complainers had claimed that evildoers prosper, and even those who challenge God escape. 
The Lord Almighty promises that a day is coming when they will see how wrong they were (cf. v 2). For 
those listed in the scroll of remembrance it will be a day when they will be God's treasured possession (17; 
Ex. 19:5). It will be a day when he will spare these faithful ones who serve him and show them 
compassion. It will be a day when the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings for those 
who revere God's name (4:2, cf. Is. 60:1-3, although the image in Malachi may be drawn from the winged sun 
disc found throughout the ancient Near East; cf. also Lk. 1:78), and they will subdue the wicked (4:3). For the 
rest it will be a day when the arrogant and every evildoer will be burned up like stubble (4:1)." 
(Hugenberger, G.P., "Malachi," in Carson, D.A., et al., eds, "New Bible Commentary: 21st Century 
Edition," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1994, Reprinted, 1997, p.889)

11/01/2009
"Gabriel then said, `Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give 
birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the 
Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of 
Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end' (Luke 1:30-33). The angel's pronouncement that the child would 
be called Jesus is full of meaning. The name `Jesus' means `Yahweh saves' or `Yahweh is salvation.' 
This name is the counterpart of the Old Testament name, `Joshua.' Just as Joshua in the Old Testament led 
Israel out of the wilderness experience into a new land and a new life, so Jesus would lead people out of a 
spiritual wilderness experience into a new sphere of existence and a new life." (Rhodes, R., "Christ Before 
the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1992, pp.178-179)

11/01/2009
"Robert Reymond has suggested that the meaning of Jesus' name, `Yahweh saves,' is an evidence for his 
deity. He qualifies what he means by noting that the name meaning `Yahweh saves' in itself `does not 
need to mean that the one who bears this name is identical with Yahweh; others [such as Joshua] bore 
the name under the Old Testament economy to symbolize the fact that Yahweh was at work in the 
salvation of his people. But I suggest that in Jesus' case we should understand that it connotes more than a 
mere symbol, inasmuch as some intimation of the identity between Jehovah [Yahweh] and the Messiah 
seems to be contained in the words of the angel (Matt. 1:21)' [Reymond, R.L., `Jesus, Divine Messiah,' 
Christian Focus Publications: Fearn, Scotland UK, 1990, p.282] Moeover, Reymond suggests, when one 
adds to this compelling data first the fact that Yahweh again and again in the Old Testament declares that 
He alone is Israel's `Savior' (Isa. 43:3, 11; 45:21; 49:26; 60:16; Hos. 13:4; cf. 1 Sam. 10:19;14:39; 2 Sam. 22:3; 
Pss. 7:10;17:7;106:21; Isa. 45:15; 63:8; Jer. 14:8) and then the fact that Jesus is often declared (along with God 
the Father) to be `the Savior' in the New Testament (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Eph. 5:23; Phil. 
3:20; 1 Tim. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Pet. 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; 1 John 4:14), it is difficult to avoid 
the conclusion that when Jesus was named `Yahweh saves,' the name connoted more than merely that He 
stood as one more in the long line of `saviors' [human deliverers] (cf. Judg. 3:9,15; 6:36; 2 Kings 13:5; Neh. 
9:27)." (Rhodes, R., "Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ," Baker: Grand 
Rapids MI, 1992, p.179) 

11/01/2009
"[Mt 1:]21. The language reminds us of similar revelations in the Old Testament (Gn. 16:11; 17:19; 
etc.), as well as of Isaiah 7:14, soon to be quoted. Names, especially divinely revealed names, are full of 
meaning, and this is often revealed by a word-play which need not always correspond to the actual 
etymology of the name. In the case of Jesus (the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua, a common 
name: see on 27:16) both the sound (cf. Heb. yosi'a, 'he will save') and the probable etymology 
('Yahweh is salvation', or 'O save, Yahweh') contribute to the explanation for he will save his people 
from their sins. His people will be in the first instance the Jews (Matthew uses this term laos 
particularly for the chosen race), but the man who wrote 28:19 must have expected a wider application 
ultimately. Salvation from sins is an element in the Old Testament hope (e.g. Is. 53; Je. 31:31-34; Ezk. 
36:24-31) and in later Messianic expectation (Psalms of Solomon 17:28-29, 41; etc.), but not the 
dominant one. Its isolation here warns the reader not to expect this Messiah to conform to the more 
popular hope of a national liberator, and sets the scene for the unfolding understanding of Jesus' 
mission in the Gospel." (France, R.T., "Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New 
Testament commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1985, p.78. Emphasis original)

11/01/2009
"[Mt 1:]22-23. ... Luke 1:31 probably alludes to the same verse, Isaiah 7:14, indicating that it was not 
only Matthew who saw its relevance to the birth of Jesus; by the middle of the second century (Justin) 
it was an important Christian weapon in defence of the virgin birth tradition. But its relevance is often 
disputed on two grounds. First, it is argued that Matthew depends on the Greek word parthenos 
(virgin), whereas the Hebrew 'alma means only 'young woman'. 'Alma is in fact used only seven 
times in the Old Testament, of girls or young women, at least two of whom were unmarried (Gn. 24:43; 
Ex. 2:8). It is not used elsewhere in connection with childbirth (or even marriage), so that its use in 
Isaiah 7:14 is remarkable, when 'issa ('woman', 'wife') would have been the normal term. It was 
perhaps this indication that Isaiah was thinking of a birth outside the normal pattern of childbirth within 
marriage which led the LXX to use parthenos. It is a reasonable, if not a necessary, translation. The 
second objection is that Isaiah 7:14 promises a sign specifically referring to the immediate historical 
situation in the reign of Ahaz, not to the distant (Messianic) future. The immediate historical reference 
is clear in vv. 14-17, but it is also clear from the wider context that the prophet's thought is, as often in 
Old Testament prophecy, not confined to that primary reference. The reintroduction of 'Immanuel' in 
Isaiah 8:8, 10, and the recurrent theme of a child to be born as deliverer (9:6-7; 11:1ff.), indicate that 7:14 
is to be seen as preparing the way for a developing Messianic theme in this section of Isaiah. Clearly 
the LXX translators, with their striking use of parthenos, understood it to refer to more than an 
ordinary birth, and the choice of 'alma in the Hebrew as well as the symbolic name 'Immanuel' 
suggest that they were right.'" (France, R.T., "Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary," The 
Tyndale New Testament commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1985, pp.78-79. Emphasis 
original)

11/01/2009
"[Mt 1:]22-23.Isaiah 7:14 is seen as fulfilled not in the naming of Jesus (v. 21), but in the whole 
account of his origin and naming in vv. 18ff. (all this, v. 22). The point is not that Jesus ever bore 
Immanuel as an actual name, but that it indicates his role, bringing God's presence to man. This 
meaning is related to that of his actual name, Jesus, in that it is sin which separates man from God's 
presence, so that salvation from sin results in `God with us'. But Matthew's stress on the meaning of 
the name (he gives explicit translations elsewhere only in 27:33, 46) suggests that he saw in it a clue to 
Jesus' person as well as his work. Jesus was himself 'God with us'; and the assurance of the continuing 
presence of Jesus in 28:20 forms with this verse a theological framework for the Gospel." (France, R.T., 
"Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, Inter-
Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1985, pp.79-80. Emphasis original)

11/01/2009
"Jesus Christ ... The Hebrew form of the name Jesus means `Jehovah Is Salvation'; Christ is the 
equivalent of the Hebrew Ma-shi'ach (Messiah), meaning `Anointed One.'" (Watchtower Bible & Tract 
Society, "Reasoning from the Scriptures," [1985], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn 
NY, Second edition, 1989, p.209. Emphasis original)

12/01/2009
"Christ as the Son of God. The most recent Jehovah-Witness publication in which their view of the 
person of Christ is set forth and defended is a 64-page booklet published in 1962, entitled `The Word' - 
Who Is He? According to John. ... The authors claim that the title Son of God .. implied that Christ was ... 
a person inferior to God the Father ... In proof of this contention the authors adduce Christ's discussion with 
the Jews who had taken up stones to stone him, recorded in John 10. Though Jesus here said, `I and the 
Father are one,' the authors contend, he did not claim to be equal to the Father, but rather claimed to be less 
than God ... Jesus, it is said, here only claimed to be the Son of God; hence the Jews were quite in error 
when they thought Christ was uttering blasphemy. By way of refutation, it should first be pointed out that, 
according to John 5:18, the Jews sought to kill Jesus `because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he 
was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God' (NWT). The Jews, therefore, did not 
understand the expression Son of God as Jehovah's Witnesses apparently do. For the latter, the term 
means someone inferior to the Father. By the Jews of Jesus' day, however, the term was interpreted as 
meaning full equality with the Father, and it was on account of this claim that they sought to kill him. This 
point becomes quite clear when we compare John 10:33 with 10:36. The former verse reads, `We [the Jews] 
are stoning you [Jesus], not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, 
make yourself a god" (NWT) [KJ, ASV, and RSV: `make yourself God.']. The latter passage reads, `Do you 
say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, "You blaspheme," because I said, I am 
God's Son?' (NWT). Putting together these two verses (if we translate verse 33 as in the standard versions), 
we see that Christ's calling himself the Son of God was interpreted by the Jews as a claim to equality with the 
Father." (Hoekema, A.A., "Jehovah's Witnesses," [1963], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1972, Reprinted, 1990, 
pp.132- 134. Emphasis original)

12/01/2009
"When Jesus was tried by Caiaphas, furthermore, He was asked, `By the living God I put you under oath to 
tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!' (Mt. 26:63, NWT). After Jesus had answered this 
question in the affirmative, the high priest is reported to have said, `He has blasphemed! What further need 
do we have of witnesses?' (v. 65, NWT). Obviously, the high priest understood the expression Son of God 
as meaning full equality with the Father since he called Jesus' assumption of this title blasphemy. If Jesus 
meant by the term Son of God something less than equality with the Father, He would by His affirmative 
answer be guilty of uttering an untruth, since for the Sanhedrin this title meant such equality. Surely if Jesus 
did not intend His words to be understood as meaning what the high priest and the rest of the Sanhedrin 
thought they meant, He could have and should have corrected their understanding of these words. When, 
after the trial before Caiaphas, Jesus appeared before Pilate, the Jews said to the governor, `We have a law, 
and according to the law he [Jesus] ought to die, because he made himself God's son' (Jn. 19:7, NWT). 
Again it is crystal-clear that the Jews understood the expression Son of God, which Jesus acknowledged 
as descriptive of himself, as meaning nothing less than full equality with the Father. Is it likely, now, that 
present-day Jehovah's Witnesses know better what Jesus claimed to be, when He called Himself the Son of 
God, than the Jews who were His contemporaries?" (Hoekema, A.A., "Jehovah's Witnesses," [1963], 
Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1972, Reprinted, 1990, pp.134- 135. Emphasis original)

14/01/2009
"[Rev 1]10. John's vision took place on the Lord's day. This is not to be interpreted as implying a 
removal of the author to the `day of the Lord' to witness the events of that day. The term Lord's in the 
phrase the Lord's day is an adjective, kuriakos, from the noun kurios, lord, and it means `belonging to 
the lord'. Paul uses it in the well known phrase `the Lord's Supper', i.e. the supper which is for the Lord and 
in his honour. Such is the meaning in the phrase the Lord's day. Deissmann has given many illustrations of 
the use of the term kuriakos in official state circles to denote what belongs to Caesar, who claimed the 
title  kurios, lord. ... Whether a day of the week or of the month, the precedent was sufficient for an 
unknown Christian to claim Sunday as the day when the true and only kurios rose from death to the 
sovereignty of the universe. The Lord's day accordingly is the day set apart in celebration of the accession 
of Jesus the Lord to the throne of God. As a title it speedily established itself among Christians, and among 
early Christian writings it appears in the Didache (14:1) and in the Letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians 
(9:1)." (Beasley-Murray, G.R., "The Book of Revelation," [1974], New Century Bible Commentary, Eerdmans: 
Grand Rapids MI, Revised edition, 1978, Reprinted, 1983, pp.64-65. Emphasis original)

17/01/2009
"Book ... Time of Writing (A.D.) ... Galatians ... 49, just after Paul's 1st missionary journey ... 1 
Thessalonians ... 50-51, during the 2nd missionary journey ... 2 Thessalonians ... 50-51, during the 2nd 
missionary journey ... 1 Corinthians ... 54, during the 3rd missionary journey ... 2 Corinthians ... 55, during the 
3rd missionary journey ... Romans ... 55, during the 3rd missionary journey ... James ... 40s or 50s ... Mark ... 
late 50s or early 60s ... Philemon ... 60 ... Colossians ... 60 ... Ephesians ... 60 ... Luke ... 60 ... Acts ... 61 ... 
Philippians ... 61 ... 1 Timothy ... 62 ... Titus ... 62 ... 2 Timothy ... 63 ... 1 Peter ... 63 ... 2 Peter ... 63-64 ... 
Matthew ... 60s ... Hebrews ... 60s ... Jude ... 60s or 70s ... John ... late 80s or early 90s ... 1 John ... late 80s or 
early 90s ... 2 John ... late 80s or early 90s ... 3 John ... late 80s or early 90s ... Revelation ... late 80s or early 90s 
... " (Gundry, R.H., "A Survey of the New Testament," Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1970, pp.384-385) 

18/01/2009
"This is an example of a further New Testament principle of Old Testament interpretation - what A. T. 
Hanson has called the `real presence' of Christ in Old Testament history. [Hanson, A.T., "Jesus Christ in the 
Old Testament," London, 1965, p.7 ff] This is a principle, I must admit, which I am not over-ready to 
recognize in the New Testament, and I am even less ready to condone its use by modern scholars as a 
means of christianizing certain areas of the Old Testament narrative. But its occasional presence in the New 
Testament is difficult to dispute. Paul's statement that `the Rock was Christ' [1Cor 10:4] is one such 
occasion. Another is the remarkable statement in the Epistle of Jude, `that Jesus, who saved a people out of 
the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed those who did not believe' [Jude 5] True, the name `Jesus' is not 
read in all forms of the text: in its place some authorities read `the Lord', others `God' and yet others, giving 
us no name at all, read `he who saved...' (one papyrus exhibits the conflated reading, `God Christ who saved 
...'). But the principle that the more difficult reading is to be preferred points to `Jesus' as the original, and 
indeed the variety of other readings can best be explained as substitutions for `Jesus'. `Jesus' in this context 
cannot be understood as the Greek form of Joshua (as in Acts 7:45; Heb 4:8), for Joshua neither led Israel 
out of Egypt nor destroyed the unbelievers in the wilderness." (Bruce, F.F., "This is That: The New 
Testament Development of Some Old Testament Themes," Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1968, pp.35-36)

18/01/2009
"It was Moses who led his people out of Egypt, but Moses did so under superior leadership. It was the 
Lord who `brought the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts', [Ex 12:51] it was the Lord 
who `went before them', [Ex 13:21] and it was by the decree of the Lord that the `evil generation' that came 
out of Egypt died in the wilderness [Num 14:20 ff.; Deut. 1:34 ff]. While Yahweh stands in the Hebrew text, 
the Greek version used by Jude, as by other New Testament writers, had Kyrios in its place, and for 
Greek-speaking Christians to whom Jesus was the kyrios or Lord par excellence it was an easy matter to 
understand Kyrios in the Greek Old Testament to refer to Him. If, again, the actions ascribed to Yahweh in 
the Exodus and wilderness narratives are elsewhere ascribed to His angel - the one of whom He said `my 
name is in him'- [Ex 23:20 f.; cf. 14:19; 32:34; 33:2, 14 ff] - then the interpretation of this special angel in terms 
of the Son of God before His incarnation presented no difficulty. Early Christian exegesis of the Old 
Testament provides many examples of this sort of thing, although New Testament examples are scanty (in 
Stephen's speech it is perhaps implied that Jesus was `the angel' who appeared to Moses `in a flame of fire 
in a bush', and later on the day of the assembly at Sinai). [Acts 7:30, 38]." (Bruce, F.F., "This is That: The 
New Testament Development of Some Old Testament Themes," Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1968, p.36. Emphasis 
original) 

22/01/2009
"A third common characteristic of Jehovah-Witness Scripture study is what might be called `knight-
jump exegesis.' Kurt Hutten ... has coined this expression to describe the way Witnesses jump from 
one part of the Bible to another, with utter disregard of context, to `prove' their points. He goes on to 
affirm that the Bible should be interpreted in an organic fashion, in a manner which does full justice to 
the differences between Old and New Testament, between poetic books and prophetic books, between 
histories and epistles, and which takes into account the fact that revelation is progressive - that it 
advances from lesser to greater clarity. Since Jehovah's Witnesses cannot draw their teachings from 
the Bible when so interpreted, however, they must, Hutten continues, resort to `knight-jump' methods 
to arrive at their conclusions. The Bible, for them, is like a flat surface in which every text has equal 
value. They [Jehovah's Witnesses] ... can jump blithely from a passage in the Pentateuch to a passage 
in the prophets or in the book of Revelation. They can thus draw their lines in all directions ... through 
the Bible, gleefully combine them in zigzag fashion, and put them together again in the most fantastic 
way. ... Jehovah's Witnesses use this method in dead earnest, believing that they are thus honoring the 
revelation of God!" (Hoekema, A.A., "Jehovah's Witnesses," [1963], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1972, 
Reprinted, 1990, pp.40-41)

22/01/2009
"An outstanding example of this method of Bible interpretation is their manner of arriving at the date 1914 as 
the year when Christ's Kingdom was established: Jehovah's Witnesses claim that `Christ the Messiah did 
not set up God's kingdom at his first advent or at once after ascending to heaven.' [The Truth Shall Make 
You Free, p. 241] How, then, can we determine the time when the kingdom was established? From Luke 
21:24 it is learned that "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations 
are fulfilled" (NWT) . The "appointed times of the nations," it is said, "indicated a period in which there 
would be no representative government of Jehovah on earth, such as the kingdom of Israel was; but the 
Gentile nations would dominate the earth." [Let God Be True, p.250] These times were running already in 
Jesus' day, since Jerusalem was then in bondage to Rome. When, then, had these "times of the nations" 
begun? In 607 B.C., when Israel, 'which was a theocracy, lost her sovereignty and was carried away to 
Babylon. [ Ibid., pp. 250-5]. In ... From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained ..., 1958, p. 172, it is specifically 
stated: `The king of Babylon took Zedekiah off "Jehovah's throne" in the year 607 B.C. and laid his city and 
territory desolate. So that year God's earthly kingdom ended. And that year, 607 B.C., the "appointed times 
of the nations" began.' Unfortunately, however, the facts do not bear out this assertion, which is pivotal for 
Jehovah-Witness chronology. Old Testament scholars are virtually unanimous in dating the capture of 
Zedekiah and the fall of Jerusalem, not in 607 B.C., but in 587 or 586 B.C." (Hoekema, A.A., "Jehovah's 
Witnesses," [1963], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1972, Reprinted, 1990, p.41)

23/01/2009
"In Jude 5, the manuscript evidence yields three different subjects [(1) kurios, (2) 'Iesous, (3) theos]. The 
major textual editions, but also the vast majority of English translations, prefer the kurios-reading as original. 
The 'Iesous-reading, although acknowledged by many as lectio difficilior, has generally been regarded as 
too hard. Yet, in light of the textual evidence studied from the standpoint of reasoned eclecticism, the 
traditional preference of the kurios-reading appears to be questionable. An examination of both external and 
internal evidence suggests that 'Iesous should be seriously considered as the original reading in Jude 5. 
This would argue for the existence of a high Christology (including Christ's pre-existence) within the Epistle 
of Jude." (Bartholomä, P.F., "Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-examination of a Textual 
Problem in Jude 5," Novum Testamentum, Vol. 50, No. 2, 2008 , pp.143-158, p.143)

27/01/2009
"Here are the conclusions that I came to after five months of intensive study: God Jehovah is the only 
true God (undisputed). Jesus is the creator (Gen 1:26-27, Is 44:24, John 1:3, Rom 11:36, John 1:10, Eph 3:9, Col 
1:15-16 [cp. Ps 89:27, Gen 41:51-52, Jer 31:9], Heb 1:8,10, 3:3-4) and sustainer (Col 1:17, Heb 1:3) of all things. 
He is the Savior (Is 43:11, Is 45:21, Hos 13:4, Titus 1:3-4, 2:13, 3:4, Titus 3:6, 2 Pet 1:1). He gives things that 
only God can give (John 1:12-13, Rev 2:23). He is the judge of all (John 5:22-23, 2 Cor 5:10) and has authority 
to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7,10, Luke 5:21, 5:24, 1 Cor 8:12, Eph 4:32). He is all-seeing (1 Ki 8:39, Rev 2:23), 
omniscient (1 Ki 8:39, Matt 9:4,12:25, Mark 2:8, Luke 6:8, 9:47, John 11:1, Col 2:2-3, Rev 2:23 [cp. 1 Ki 8:39]), 
and omnipresent (Matt 18:20, 28:20). Jesus was eternally preexistent (Micah 5:2, John 1:1, Col 1:17, Heb 7:3) 
and He never changes (Heb 1:8,10, 13:8). It is proper to serve Him (John 12:26, Rom 1:1, 1 Cor 4:1, 2 Cor 5:15, 
Gal 1:10, Phil 1:1, Col 3:24, 4:12, Jas 1:1, Jude 1), to pray to Him (John 14:14 [Kingdom Interlinear], Acts 
7:5960, 9:14, 9:20-21, 22:16, 22:17-19, Rom 10:9, 11-13, 1 Cor 1:2, 2 Cor 12:8-9, 1 Ti 1:12, Rev 22:20), to give Him 
glory (Is 42:8, 48:11, Dan 7:13-14, John 1:14, 5:22-23, 11:4, 13:31-32, 16:13-15, 17:5, Acts 3:13, Phil 2:9, Col 1:16, 
2 Thess 1:12, 2 Pet 3:18, Rev 1:5-6, 5:11-14), and to worship Him (Matt 2:2,8,11, 4:10, 14:33, 28:9,16-17, John 
9:38, Heb 1:6, Rev 5:8; 14:7 [cp. Acts 10:25, Rev 19:10; 22:8-9]). Jesus is Lord (Deut 10:17, Matt 12:8, John 
20:27-28, Rom 10:9,11-13, Eph 4:4-5, James 2:1, Rev 17:14, 19:16) and is sovereign with His Father (Matt 25:31, 
28:18, John 3:31,35, 13:3, 16:15, 17:10, Phil 2:9-11, Heb 1:2, 2:8, Rev 22:3). Being the Son of God (John 5:18, 
10:28-33,36), He is also truly God (Deut 32:36,39, Is 9:6, 10:21, 43:10, 44:6 [cp. Is 48:12, Rev 1:17-18, 2:8, 21:6-7, 
22:12-16,20], Matt 1:23, 13:41, John 1: 1, 2:19,21 [cp. Acts 2:24], 5:18, 8:19,28,58-59 [cp. Ex 3:14; LXX], 10:28-33, 
12:44, 13:19, 14:7-9; 15:13, 18:4-6, 20:2829, Acts 20:28, Eph 3:19, Phil 2:6, Col 2:9, 1 Ti 3:15-16, Titus 2:13, Heb 
1:3-4,8 [cp. Ps 45:6], 3:1-4, 2 Pet 1:1, 1 John 5:20, Rev 22:1-4) and Jehovah (Zech 2:8-11, 11:12-13 [cp. Matt 
26:14-15], 12:1,10 [cp. Rev 1:7], 14:3-5 [cp. Matt 25:31, Acts 1:11-121, 14:5 [cp. 1 Thess 3:13], Matt 3:3, Mark 
1:2-3, Luke 3:4, John 1:23, Luke 1:76 [cp. Is 40:3], Matt 21:15-16 [cp. Ps. 2:6], John 17:11-12, Rom 10:9,11-13 
[cp. Joel 2:32], Phil 2:9, 1:4, 1:8,10 [cp. Ps 102:22-25]), together with His Father." (Quick, K.R., "Pilgrimage 
Through the Watchtower," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, pp.58-59. Emphasis original)

27/01/2009
"The Holy Spirit is a Person (Matt 3:16, 10:20, Mark 1:10, Luke 12:12, John 1:32, 14:16-17,26, 15:26, 16:7-
8,1315, Acts 1:16, 5:3,9, 10:19-20, 15:28, 20:23, Rom 8:16, 1 Cor 12:11, Eph 4:30, Heb 3:7, Heb 10:15, Rev 22:17), 
and is God (Gen 1:2 [cp. vs. 1], Matt 12:32, Luke 12:10, John 14:26, Acts 1:16 [cp. Heb 1:1], Acts 5:3-4, 28:25 
[cp. Heb 1:1], 2 Cor 13:14, Heb 10:15-17) together with the Father and with the Son." (Quick, K.R., "Pilgrimage 
Through the Watchtower," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, p.59)

27/01/2009
"The Old Testament in several places indicates plurality in the Godhead (Gen 1:1-3, 1:26, 3:22, 11:7,9, Gen 18, 
19:24, Ex 23:20-23 [cp. 1 Cor 10:4], Is 48:12,16, 63:7-14, Zech 2:8-11, 3:2]). As mentioned above, the Bible 
indicates both the deity of Christ and the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit. These factors, together 
with the deity of the Father (undisputed), produce a description of the Godhead in trinity. Especially in the 
New Testament, these three Persons are repeatedly spoken of as cooperating collectively (Matt 3:16-17, 
Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, Matt 28:19, Luke 1:35, John 3:34-35, John 14:26, 16:13-15, Acts 2:3233, 38-39, Rom 
15:16,30, 1 Cor 12:4-6, 2 Cor 3:4-6, 13:14 [cp. 1 John 1:3], Gal 4:4-6, Eph 4:4-6, Heb 10:12,15, 1 Pet 1:2)." (Quick, 
K.R., "Pilgrimage Through the Watchtower," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1989, pp.59-60)

31/01/2009
"I remember meeting Sir Winston Churchill during his last year as Prime Minister of Great Britain. It was in 
London just after one of our Wembley Stadium Crusades. During the course of our conversation Sir 
Winston had three afternoon newspapers beside him and an unlighted cigar in his mouth. And he said, 
`Young man, I want to ask you a question. I don't think that the world has very much longer to go. It's in so 
many troubles.' He paused and asked, `Can you give an old man some hope?' I pulled out my New 
Testament, and I not only gave him the plan of salvation, but I told him all about the return of Christ. ... 
When is it going to happen? Is the present age drawing to a close? Is the kingdom age soon to be ushered 
in? I cannot give you any date; Jesus warned us that we were not to try to fix any exact time. History proves 
how easily we can be mistaken. When Napoleon was sweeping across Europe in the last century many Bible 
students thought he was the Antichrist. Many people thought Mussolini or Hitler was the Antichrist. They 
were anti-Christian, but they were not the great Antichrist who is yet to come. The Bible teaches that some 
day Jesus Christ is coming back to earth. The Scripture holds out both hope and warning." 
(Graham, W.F., "Till Armageddon: A Perspective on Suffering," Hodder and Stoughton: London, 1981, 
pp.20-21)

31/01/2009
"Shabu`a ... sheba` § 35. rem. 7) fem. shibe`ath masc. (constr. shibe`ath).-I. num. card. seven; 
seba` shanim seven years, and with the constr. shib`eath yamim seven days; less frequently 
preceded by the noun, as shibe`ah 'elim seven rams; also as an ordinal when preceded by a noun in the 
construct state, as sheba` shenath seventh year; shibe`ah shibe`ah by sevens; `ese'rah sheba` 
fem. & `ashar shibe`ah masc. seventeen. - II. (sheba`) adv. seven times, Ps. 119.164; Pr 24.16. Du. 
shibe`athaim sevenfold. Pl. shibe`im (§ 35. rem. 16) seventy. For another sheba` (& shib`ah) 
see below. ... shabu`oth the feast of weeks, pentecost, -II. a week of years, comp. Da. 9.24, seq. 
shebi`i masc. shibi`ith fem. adj. ordin. from shaba`, seventh. ... shabu`im .. noun masc., pl. of 
shabu`a (§ 32 rem. 1). shaba`" (Davidson, B., "The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon," Samuel 
Bagster & Sons: London, 1966, pp.698-699. My transliteration)

[top]