Jehovah's Witness's (NWT) Flawed??

what john wrote , the last part of 1v1 :

"theos en ho logos"

cowells rule does not apply to john 1v1 in the sense of definitness .

John was saying that the Word was Like God . the Word was also Divine

John could eaisly have writted "the Word was God" . he didnt

& John 1v1 is the ONLY scripture that comes close to saying Jesus is God . to focus on it is to ignore black & white statements to the contrary

Originally posted by Brad_cf& John 1v1 is the ONLY scripture that comes close to saying Jesus is God . to focus on it is to ignore black & white statements to the contrary

So you claim that Christ was created no? Well since you say only one place does Jesus claim this , I will give you a couple more...

Mark 2:5 And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven."

Who Can forgive sins but GOd?

Mat 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

So Christ claim He saw this? Hmm but he wasn't there right?

Mat 12:6 "But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here.
Mat 12:7 "But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent.
Mat 12:8 "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."


How can anyone claim to be Lord of the Sabbath except the one who instituted it? That is a DIRECT claim to Deity.

I can give you more if you like...

Originally posted by Brad_cf
what john wrote , the last part of 1v1 :

"theos en ho logos"

cowells rule does not apply to john 1v1 in the sense of definitness .
John was saying that the Word was Like God . the Word was also Divine
John could eaisly have writted "the Word was God" . he didnt

As for the Watchtowers interpretation of this verse only one other has it,

"The New Testament of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: with corrected text" printed in London in 1908.
This Unitarian's obscure translation should be the basis of you scriptures main focus?


The Watchtower contends that when 'theos' (Greek for God) is used in John 1:1, it appears twice, once using a definite article and once without. When without, they feel its justified translating it as "the Word was a God'

hmmm


The first 18 verses of Johns Gospel, 'theos', appears 16 times without a definite article and only twice with. It is rendered God in every case except for the last clause of verse one when it refers to Christ!

hmmm


If the Watchtower was consistent then Verse 6 should be also rendered "There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of a God" and yet it doesn't. It is an inconsistent translation from those whom did not understand Greek at all, and surely not enough to place peoples salvation on the line to back it.

I have a few more for you...found them during Church this morning..

For He is Risen! He is Risen indeed!

Luke 19:46 "It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be a house of prayer' ; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"


John 8:19 Then they asked him, "Where is your father?" "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."


John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
John 8:57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

John 12:44 Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me.
John 12:45 When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me.


John 14:5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
John 14:8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
John 14:9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
John 14:10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.


Rev 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."


Rev 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.
Rev 1:18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.



SO as you can see the Bible is VERY consistent in its claims for deity for Christ..... because He came in the Flesh to dwell among us...


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.
John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

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

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.








[edit on 8-4-2007 by edsinger]

As of for the Gospel of John...

So that you may learn.....

The Prologue to the Gospel

1:1 In the beginning1 was the Word, and the Word was with God,2 and the Word was fully God.3 1:2 The Word4 was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created5 by him, and apart from him not one thing was created6 that has been created.7 1:4 In him was life,8 and the life was the light of mankind.9 1:5 And the light shines on10 in the darkness,11 but12 the darkness has not mastered it.13

From the NetBible notes, which are very good and its free:
Free NetBible version with notes

1sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis – “In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” (1:4) “light” (1:4) and “darkness” (1:5). Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)

2tn The preposition πρός (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Πρός …means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.

3tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

As for the NWT... even it says the obvious:

29 What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father.

30 I and the Father are one.

NWT Online

See your own book has it....

As much as I agree with you that the NWT is flawed in the sense that it has been created to fit the JW faith. I would have to argue that you are doing the same thing that is common with christianiy in general. You are choosing what should be taken literal and what is figurative. You can argue with him all day over semanics but it doesn't prove anything if people are free to choose what is litteral or not.

Thats not saying christianity is wrong. Its just a point to consider when you are preaching denominational exclusivity instead of focusing on the common ground of Christianity...which is to be Christ like.

Originally posted by xEphon
As much as I agree with you that the NWT is flawed in the sense that it has been created to fit the JW faith. I would have to argue that you are doing the same thing that is common with christianiy in general. You are choosing what should be taken literal and what is figurative. You can argue with him all day over semanics but it doesn't prove anything if people are free to choose what is litteral or not.

Not to mention that we have NO idea what the original texts were as the have been translated to service whomever was in power. Ie: The Cathoilic Church or as the translation says, King James. Are the translations pure? I doubt it.

Well we do have some that date from the late 1st century and even full ones from the late 200's to early 300's. Are they perfect? Not at all, in this particular case though I feel that the translation of the NWT IS directly flawed and that puts the meaning of the scriptures at risk.

If you are interested on translations and the history, I have a thread going on that exact subject as its what I have been doing in my spare time these last 14 months whilst away from ATS for so long. I read a lot.

Bible Translations -- Opinions & Questions


As for the NWT, I do like it when they come by, its an opportunity for me to see just what they believe and what it is based on. I had a gentlemen come by that was an electrician, so I immediately had a bond with him. We talked for quite a long time and he was unaware of the history of the NWT and its translation methods. I did not change his mind, but I did plant a seed of doubt about just what he is being told to go door to door and tell people (most of which would have no clue). I hope that this young man went and researched it himself so that his eyes could be opened to the possibility that what he believes is flawed, even by his own book.

Jehovah's Witness's are not considered a cult for nothing......I fear for their souls for they do not except Christ. The one that gets me the most are the Mormons. Good people no doubt, but something is just not right. All I have known I consider my Christian brothers but the more I research them, the more I began to realize it too is a cult.

Originally posted by edsinger
SO as you can see the Bible is VERY consistent in its claims for deity for Christ..... because He came in the Flesh to dwell among us...

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

what the NT is consistent on , is in showing JC directing all praise & worship to his hevenly father

before the world existed there was JC , because JC is Gods son - the firstborn of ALL creation . yes indeed this son of God had a hand in making everything , & is called in scripture "Gods Master Worker" . one of the titles JC is given

the first creative act of God was in making another like him as a son - a relationship we know from the fleshly way we have childeren . this can cloud how you view Gods relationship with his son . that of spirit to spirit

JC represented his Father here on earth , & after armageddon JC will be king over this earth during a millenium rule . after which the earth & its clensed population will be handed back in a restored condition to once again be Gods own

john in his first verse is skirting around the jews perception that only God is over them . that the messiah is from God & not just a human , & not only that but has been ordained by God to be a king over the earth - was bordering on heresay . john 1 v 1 is making a distinction in its wording

there is no way to see verse 1 as saying "the Word was God" . because of how its written , it makes a distinction clear

Originally posted by intrepid
Not to mention that we have NO idea what the original texts were as the have been translated to service whomever was in power. Ie: The Cathoilic Church or as the translation says, King James. Are the translations pure? I doubt it.

the dead sea scrolls showed how accurate the bible today is

there was over a 700 year difference between the DSS Isaiah & the next oldest version of isaiah - the differences between the 2 didnt amount to any contextual change , they were basically identical

copying was a grave concern & a professional job amongst the hebrews . copies were made letter for letter (letter of each word , checked , then the next letter of said word)

what changes we do have were of theological interpretations such as the nicean council trying to implant the pagan trinitarian belief system into christianity , twisting scripture in the process to make it fit

Originally posted by xEphon
As much as I agree with you that the NWT is flawed in the sense that it has been created to fit the JW faith.

the only changes the NWT has over other bibles , is the insertion of Gods name where it is appropiate

the JW religon started out of insight as to how wrong christianity was , especially on the issue of the trinity

it wasnt without Gods direction that our bible came to be printed by us . it isnt without Gods direction that our religon continues to operate year by year

in fact there is no other christian religon capable of succeeding in following Christs command to accomplish the preaching work

& this is something that every Jehovahs Witness is obeying - its not for the lack of trying that other christian religons dont do this . its for lack of Gods protection & blessing

Funny I have been doing some research on the NWT and I find it very disturbing that in the translation the claim is made by JW's that only their translation of the Greek and Hebrew are correct and yet the majority of those that teach it and know it, think the NWT does not get it right.

The founders of JW were known liars and not trained to even do a translation.

One interesting thing I did read is that before the NWT , the JW's used the KJV. I find this very odd.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." --1 John 5:7 (KJV)

Now I know that this was an added verse, sometime around the 14th Century, but just how did the JW deal with this one verse when they didn't have the NWT?

One interesting thing I did read is that before the NWT , the JW's used the KJV. I find this very odd.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." --1 John 5:7 (KJV)

Now I know that this was an added verse, sometime around the 14th Century, but just how did the JW deal with this one verse when they didn't have the NWT?

You may be assuming that the only Version available to them was the King James.
There is no reason to make this assumption.
I think they recognized for quite some time that this was a spurious scripture. They were not alone in doing so though.

In 1881 there was published a revision of the “New Testament” of the King James Version, called the “English Revised Version”. It omitted the spurious text 1 John 5:7, as had Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott version a few years earlier.

The American Standard Version of 1901 did. When the Greek Scriptures of this version were revised and published in 1946, the spurious text was still missing. It is likewise omitted in Moffatt’s modern translation (1922), in An American Translation by Goodspeed (1935), in The New Testament in Basic English (1941), in Darby’s version (1949), in Weymouth’s version (fifth edition, 1929), in the Twentieth Century New Testament (1901), in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible (1897), and so on through practically all modern English versions.

This was also in their 1950 edition,

The fact is that every informed clergyman knows that the words of 1 John 5:7, as in the King James Version, are not found in the most reliable Greek Scripture manuscripts, namely, the Vatican 1209, the Sinaitic, and the Alexandrine. The Greek text used as the basis of the New World Translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881), by reason of its admitted excellence. It does not contain the spurious words at 1 John 5:7.

I found this statement made in their 1950 edition of the Watchtower magazine,

" Aside from Matthew’s own translation into Greek, no written translation of the Scriptures down to this day is inspired. Moreover, being made from imperfect copies of the original Scriptures, the translation in a foreign language is often made more incapable of presenting perfectly the original thought or shade of meaning. So no recent translation of the Holy Scriptures should be venerated as inspired, not even the most popular Bible translation, the King James Version, nor the Latin Vulgate or Martin Luther’s Version."

I think they dealt with this quite well. This information regarding 1John 5:7 was made available to each and every one of them, and to those who read their literature.

I don't blame them for wanting a more accurate version, without spurious scriptures like this.

Originally posted by edsinger

The founders of JW were known liars and not trained to even do a translation.

You might be interested in this info about their translation process.
In their 1950 Watchtower they made this statement, in an open letter to To Matthew Smith,
Monsignor of the Roman Catholic Church in America,

No parts of the Bible have been rewritten in this New World Translation to fit the beliefs of Jehovah’s witnesses, as you blatantly assert. The Translation Committee did not construct its own Greek text of the Christian Scriptures. No; but on page 8 of the Foreword it notifies us that the Committee used the 1948 Macmillan Company edition of the Westcott and Hort text of 1881, besides S. C. E. Legg’s editions of Matthew and Mark, and that it also took into consideration “other texts, including that prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar José María Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk”. Concerning the same Greek text mainly used by the Committee, E. J. Goodspeed says in his Preface in “An American Translation” (1939): “I have closely followed the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, now generally accepted. Every scholar knows its great superiority to the late and faulty Greek texts from which the early English translations from Tyndale to the Authorized Version were made.”

They are not alone in rendering certain texts the way they do.

As far as your charge that "Their founding Fathers were known Liars" I would like to point out that they were imperfect men. They are in good company for Romans 3:4 states in part,

4 Never may that happen! But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar,

Plus they are not around to defend themselves. The important point is that JW's today do not stubbornly cling to their founding fathers mistaken beliefs but instead are resolved to correct mistakes when they are found. Sometimes though they take their time doing so, in my opinion.

I like the NWT, it is clear and understandable, but it is not the only translation I use.





[edit on 24-4-2007 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by edsinger
As for the NWT... even it says the obvious:


30 I and the Father are one.

NWT Online

See your own book has it....

Regarding this scripture one should consider whether Jesus really meant that He was God Almighty himself, but just in a different form.

If this text is taken out of contect one would readily conclude that this is indeed what He is saying.
However, if the context is considered, then it is easy to see that this is not the case.
Looking in the same chapter we should consider John 17:21-22.
where Jesus prayed to God that his disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us . . . that they may be one just as we are one.”

Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become one person? No, he was praying that they would be in unity, of the same mind and purpose, just as Jesus and God were.

The same idea is expressed at 1 Corinthians 1:10, where Paul states that Christians ‘should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among them, but that they should be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.’ So when Jesus said that he and his Father were one, he did not mean that they were the same person, just as when he said that his disciples should become one he did not mean that they were the same person.

Originally posted by edsinger
I
Luke 19:46 "It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be a house of prayer' ; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"

Jesus was not stating that these were his words.
When he said "It is written," he was referring to JEr 7:11 Where Jeremiah attributes this statement to Yahweh aka Jehovah.

7 The word that occurred to Jeremiah from Jehovah, saying:....snip

I don't see how this supports your argument.

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Brad_cf& John 1v1 is the ONLY scripture that comes close to saying Jesus is God . to focus on it is to ignore black & white statements to the contrary

So you claim that Christ was created no? Well since you say only one place does Jesus claim this , I will give you a couple more...

Mark 2:5 And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven."

Who Can forgive sins but GOd?

JEsus himself makes this clear. In Matthew 28:18 he said,

“All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth”

Who gave it to him if not the Father? The fact that this authority was given to him, ie, something that he did not already have, indicates to me anyway that Jesus is not equal to his Father.
And lest we think that All Authority includes authority over the Father we must consider 1Corinthians 15:27

27 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.

just some food for thought.
Things seem Black & White only when one does not have an open mind.


[edit on 24-4-2007 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by edsinger


As for the Watchtowers interpretation of this verse only one other has it,

"The New Testament of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: with corrected text" printed in London in 1908.
This Unitarian's obscure translation should be the basis of you scriptures main focus?

Not true. A number of Bible translators did not use the phrase “the Word was God.” Here are a few examples: “The Logos [Word] was divine.” (A New Translation of the Bible) “The Word was a god.” (The New Testament in an Improved Version) “The Word was with God and shared his nature.” (The Translator’s New Testament)

Das Evangelium nach Johannes (1979) by Jürgen Becker reads: “ . . . und der Logos war bei dem Gott, und ein Gott war der Logos.” (English translation: “ . . . and the Logos was with the God, and a god the Logos was.”)

Moffatt’s translation reads: “The Logos was divine.

There are more if you want me to go on. But I think I made the point that all is not Black & White.


Just because you are not familiar with them does not mean they should be discounted.

There are also other Bible verses that in the Greek language have a construction similar to that of John 1:1 use the expression “a god.” For example, when referring to Herod Agrippa I, the crowds shouted: ‘It is a god speaking.’ And when Paul survived a bite by a poisonous snake, the people said: “He is a god.” (Acts 12:22; 28:3-6) It is in harmony with both Greek grammar and Bible teaching to speak of the Word as, not God, but “a god.”—John 1:1.

Consider how John identified “the Word” in the first chapter of his Gospel. “The Word became flesh and resided among us,” he wrote, “and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father.”

So “the Word,” who became flesh, lived on the earth as the man Jesus and was seen by people. Therefore, he could not have been Almighty God, regarding whom John says: “No man has seen God at any time.”—John 1:14, 18.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by edsinger


Did he not claim He is the Alpha and the Omega....therefore if he had no beginning..well you get the idea.

I don't think it is an established fact that Jesus claimed to be the Alpha & Omega.

This expression, "Alpha & Omega occurs three times in the book of Revelation.

The first one is at Rev 1:8 where it is plain that title is given to God Almighty. Not Jesus

8 “I am the Al′pha and the O·me′ga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”

NWT

8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

KJV

8I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, says the Lord God, He Who is and Who was and Who is to come, the Almighty (the Ruler of all).

Amplified Bible.

Although the preceding verse speaks of Christ Jesus, it is clear that in verse 8 the application of the title is to “the Almighty” God. In this regard Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (1974) observes: “It cannot be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here . . . There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such.”

The next occurance of this phrase is Rev 21:6

” 6 And he said to me: “They have come to pass! I am the Al′pha and the O·me′ga, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free.

NWT

6And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

KJV

The following verse identifies the speaker by saying: “Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” Inasmuch as Jesus referred to those who are joint heirs with him in his Kingdom as “brothers,” not “sons,” the speaker must be Jesus’ heavenly Father, Mt 25:40; compare Heb 2:10-12

The last occurrance is Rev 22:13

I am the Al′pha and the O·me′ga, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

NWT

13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

KJV

the dialogue in Chap 22 is a bit tricky to follow because the speakers kep changing.
For instance Rev 22: 8-9 shows that an angel is speaking to John. Then Rev 22:16 is clearly Jesus speaking. However the latter part of Rev 22:17 is credited to "the Spirit & the Bride". whoever they are.
Then Rev 22:20 is clearly John himself speaking.
“The Alpha and the Omega” of verses 12-15, therefore, may properly be identified as the same one who bears the title in the other two occurrences: God Almighty, Yahweh, Jehovah. Not his son, Jesus.

Sorry it was so long winded.

I don't believe any religion today should claim that it uderstands everything in the Bible. I think is is incumbant on everyone to do their own research and then decide for themselves.

After all, isn't that what free will is all about?

Peace

Originally posted by edsinger
John is the most commonly used verse and the other is this one:

John 14:28 "You have heard Me say to you, 'I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.

They fail to understand that this is while He was Flesh and had yet not ascended.

Pehaps you should consider what was said of his relationship with the God after he ascended.

I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”

Revised Standard Version.

Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.

Or This one; also years after he ascended.

“‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.”

Revised Standard Version

Both of these verses indicate Jesus subserviant role in relation to his Father, God the Almighty. And again, both after his asscension.

The role of Father & Son is well defined.