Most Recent Additions/Updates
Benjamin Kedar and the NWT
"Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in
English Translations of the New Testament"
"Does the N.T. call Jesus "God""
"Jesus as "theos.""
Cross or Stake?
Buchanan and Hebrews 1
Colossians 1:15 "all other things"?
Coming or Presence?
New World Translation Renderings.
On the form of the Divine Name 'Jehovah'.
Acts 20:28 "...the blood of his own [Son]"
Revelation 3:14 "...the beginning of the
creation by God."
Proskyneo: Always "worship"?
'worship or obeisance'
does it matter?
John 17:3 "This means everlasting life...."
(Including: "Response to Lynn Lundquist's
Matthew 27:50-"pneuma," "yielded
up his spirit."
Colossians 2:9 "divine nature."
Minor Criticisms Answered.
1 John 5:20.
Who is the "only true God."?'
Comma'.-1 John 5:7
The Trinity Doctrine- Biblically Founded?
An Example of one Web critic of the NWT !
Trinity 'Proof Texts'
(as provided for us on a site that is pro-Trinity
LXX of Isaiah"
John L. McKenzie
H. Chadwick and the 'Trinity Brochure'
Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation
Items for sale
Below is an actual reproduction
of a web page(with the absence of only it's graphics made up
mostly of 'knock-out punches'- indicating that the proof offered
is without refutation !!)located on a website that continually
criticises the WTB&TS and the New World Translation.
We will refute the so-called "Proof Texts" for
the Trinity doctrine offered by this page. We use the word "refute"
in the sense of "disprove" rather than "oppose."
It behooves each person to believe as they so wish. But it also
equally behooves each and every person who claims to be a
Christian to make a defense for the hope within us. This is the spirit
in which this page has been created. Admittedly , it has been
said, that it is "easier to deny than it is to believe."
However, you, the reader, will be able to make up your own
mind whether the "proof texts" do indeed 'prove'
the Trinity doctrine or they do not. Our additions will be in green.
Please remember that the definition of "proof" is
"that which ascertains or establishes truth or fact."-The
New Universal Dictionary.
The page is as follows:
Old Testament Trinity Proof
||I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone
forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn
back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will
swear allegiance. "They will say of Me, 'Only in the
Lord are righteousness and strength.' Men will come to
Him, And all who were angry at Him shall be put to shame.
The quotation of Isaiah 45:23-24
is supposed to show that Paul had this passage in mind
when he wrote at Philippians 2:9-11;
"Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed
on Him the name which is above every name, that at the
name of JESUS EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW, of those who are in
heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and every
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
glory of God the Father."
But is this the case? We have quoted the Philippians
passage from the New American Standard Bible. To
be fair to the webpage author many Bible version do
indeed 'link', by way of a marginal reference, these two
passages of scripture. But is Philippians a quotation of
the one in Isaiah?
Back in a 1960 Watchtower(p.318), in a 'Question
From Readers' article, we find the NWTTC answer a charge
of 'theological bias' against them in their rendering of
Philippians 2:9. We herewith supply that article.
""[Question]Dr. Bruce M.
Metzger, a member of the faculty of Princeton, New
Jersey, Theological Seminary, writes: "In the New
World Translation it is stated (page 9 of New Testament
volume), "To each major word we have assigned one
meaning and have held to that meaning as far as the
context permitted." My question arises from the
failure to abide by this self-imposed rule at Philippians
2:11, where the word kyrios, elsewhere rendered "Jehovah"
237 times, is not rendered "Jehovah" despite
the clear allusion to Isaiah 45:23 and following where
the word Jehovah appears. Could it be that the Arian
theology of the translators overrode their expressed rule
of translating?" Do you deem this inquirer's
question deserving of a sound and thorough reply?
number of Watchtower readers, evidently unacquainted with
New Testament Greek, have written us a similar question,
apparently inspired by the publicity that Dr. Metzger has
given to a discussion of this matter. The doctor quotes
from the second paragraph on page nine of the Foreword,
where we read "To each major word we have assigned
one meaning and have held to that meaning as far as the
context permitted. This, we know, has imposed a
restriction upon our diction, but it makes for good cross-reference
work and for a more reliable comparison of related texts
or verses. At the same time, in order to bring out the
richness and variety of the language of the inspired
writers, we have avoided the rendering of two or more
Greek words by the same English word, for this hides the
distinction in shade of meaning between the several words
thus rendered." The theological doctor quotes part
of the above and leaves his reader to imagine that the
translators of the New World Translation of the Christian
Greek Scriptures were arbitrary, or self-determining, in
their rendering of the Greek word ky'rios (without the
Greek definite article) by the divine name, Jehovah. But
in its very Foreword the translators show that they were
not acting arbitrarily in rendering the Greek word
ky'rios (without the definite article) into English as
Jehovah. If Dr. Metzger has read the Foreword of the
above volume through, then he should have learned on what
basis the New World translators restored the divine name,
Jehovah, to the English translation of the Christian
Greek Scriptures. Beginning on page 19, he should have
read the following:
" RESTORING THE NAME: What is the modern translator
to do? Is he justified, yes, authorized, to enter the
divine name into a translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures? Every Greek reader must confess that in the
LXX the Greek words kyrios and the theos have been used
to crowd out the distinctive name of the Supreme Deity.
Every comprehensive Greek-English dictionary states that
these two Greek words have been used as equivalents of
the divine name. Hence the modern translator is warranted
in using the divine name as an equivalent of those two
Greek words, that is, at places where Matthew, etc.,
quote verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew
Scriptures or from the LXX where the divine name occurs."
Then to that paragraph there is added a footnote of three
paragraphs quoting from three different Greek-English
lexicons to show that in the Greek Septuagint version of
the Hebrew Scriptures the Greek words ky'rios and theos'
were used to substitute for the divine name, Jehovah.
Now on page 20 of the Foreword, paragraph one says:
"How is a modern translator to know or determine
when to render the Greek words [kyrios]and [theos]into
the divine name in his version? By determining where the
inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew
Scriptures. Then he must refer back to the original to
locate whether the divine name appears there. This way he
can determine the identity to give to [kyrios] and [theos]
and he can then clothe them with personality."
This Foreword shows that in the course of time nineteen
translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures, or of
parts of them, have been made from the Greek into the
ancient Biblical Hebrew, and that these Hebrew
translators, including Professor Franz Delitzsch and also
Dr. Isaac Salkinson and Dr. Christian David Ginsburg,
used the name Jehovah or the Hebrew tetragrammaton (with
vowel symbols) in translating the writings of Christ's
apostles and disciples, generally known as the New
Testament. Thus, before the New World Translation of the
Christian Greek Scriptures came along, these Hebrew
translators put the divine name in the Christian writings
officially called the New Testament.
Consequently on page 20 of the Foreword the New World
Bible Translation Committee says in the second paragraph:
"To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator
into the field of exegesis, we have tried to be most
cautious about rendering the divine name, always
carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures. We have
looked for some agreement with us by the Hebrew versions
we consulted to confirm our own rendering. Thus, out of
the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in
the body of our version, there are only two instances
where we have no support or agreement from any of the
Hebrew versions. But in these two instances, namely,
Ephesians 6:8 and Colossians 3:13, we feel strongly
supported by the context and by related texts in
rendering the divine name. The notes in our lower margin
show the support we have for our renderings from the
Hebrew versions and other authorities."
In view of the above we wonder why the faculty member of
the Princeton Theological Seminary quoted only partially
from page 9 of the above-mentioned Foreword, but left
unquoted to you all the above information in the Foreword
concerning how the translators determined upon the
fitness of putting the divine name back into the
Christian Scriptures. These portions, which the
theologian fails to call to your attention, show why
ky'rios (without the definite article) is not always
rendered as Jehovah in the New World Translation.
The theologian says that Philippians 2:11 clearly alludes
to Isaiah 45:23 and following material. Let us see. These
verses, as translated by the American Standard Version,
read: "By myself have I sworn, the word is gone
forth from my mouth in righteousness, and shall not
return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue
shall swear. Only in Jehovah, it is said of me, is
righteousness and strength; even to him shall men come;
and all they that were incensed against him shall be put
to shame. In Jehovah shall all the seed of Israel be
justified, and shall glory."
However, Philippians 2:9-11 in the American Standard
Version reads: "Wherefore also God highly exalted
him, and gave unto him the name which is above every
name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of
things in heaven and things on earth and things under the
earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord [ ky'rios ], to the glory of God the
This is not the same as the Isaiah quotation. Philippians
2:11 does not say that every tongue should swear to Jesus.
It says that every tongue should confess something
concerning Jesus to the glory of God the Father. So this
is not an allusion to Isaiah 45:23 such as would require
Jesus to be identified with Jehovah.
Remember that "Jehovah" is a name, the divine
name, but Philippians 2:9-11 says that the name of the
Son of God is Jesus, not Jehovah; and the name Jesus
really means "Jehovah is salvation" or "the
salvation of Jehovah." So what Philippians 2:11 says
is that every tongue is going to confess the occupancy by
Jesus of a certain titular office, to the glory of God
the Father, namely, lordship. This title "Lord"
in the Greek text is ky'rios (without the definite
Anyone familiar with the New Testament Greek knows that
this word ky'rios (without the definite article) is used
in places when addressing a person and hence does not
mean Jehovah. It means Lord or Sir. That is the way the
New World Translation and other versions render the
anarthrous ky'rios in the appropriate places. Also, when
ky'rios is used as a title it appears without the
definite article, as in cases like that of Philippians 2:9-11.
All the English versions of Christendom, even those in
Hebrew, show that in Philippians 2:11 the ky'rios without
article is used as a title, not as a personal name. That
is the reason why the New World Translation renders
Philippians 2:11: "Every tongue should openly
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the
Father." No Christian has to confess that Jesus
Christ is Jehovah, because that is not the truth. Jesus
told us to pray for his Father's name to be hallowed or
sanctified, and every informed Bible scholar knows that
the name of God the Father is Jehovah.
The apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6, says:" For
even though there are those who are called 'gods',
whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many
'gods' and many 'lords' , there is actually to us one God
the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him,
and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all
things are, and we through him" So what Christians
must confess is that Jesus Christ is Lord, or ky'rios (without
the definite article).
The word ky'rios without the definite article is thus
used also in 1 Corinthians 12:3. There in the Greek text
the same expression occurs as in Philippians 2:11,
namely, KYRIOS YESOUS. In both texts the Greek word
ky'rios is a title by which a person of a certain name is
to be addressed. Hence it would be wrong, in fact
ridiculous, to render that expression KYRIOS YESOUS
"Jehovah Jesus." None of the Hebrew
translations render it "Jehovah Jesus", but
recognize the Greek word ky'rios there as a title and
hence use the Hebrew word Adonai, meaning Lord, instead
of the name Jehovah.
Hence the New World Translation is consistent, and it
violates no general rule of action set forth in its
Foreword when it renders the expression in 1 Corinthians
12:3, as well as in Philippians 2:11, "Jesus is
Lord," not "Jesus is Jehovah." So the
translators are not to be charged with being influenced
by the theology of the antitrinitarian Arius for doing so.
A recent translation entitled "The Authentic New
Testament" by a Jew named Hugh J. Schonfield,
published in 1955, renders the expression as an address
to Jesus, reading: "And no one is able to say, 'Lord
Jesus!' except by the holy Spirit."(1 Corinthians 12:3)
This Jewish translator renders Philippians 2:11: "And
every tongue acclaim Jesus Christ as Master, to the glory
of God the Father." It is very easy for a
trinitarian theologian of Christendom to carp at a Bible
translation that does not agree with his trinitarian
doctrine. But when he does so by concealing the basis
upon which the criticized translation makes its
consistent rendering, is he fair and scholarly? Or has he
proved his point? We leave you to answer the question."
We might just add here
that in Isaiah 45:23,24 only one person is in
view and in the Philippian passage (only) two
persons are. How then, we might ask,; Is this "proof"
of the Trinity doctrine? In the Trinity there are said to
be three persons in One God. Clearly then, the
webpage writer has not thought deeply enough with his
Now, the trinitarian may answer by saying that we mere
earthly mortals cannot comprehend the incomprehensible
God. However, we would answer that if indeed the God of
the Bible is said to be one person yet three persons then
we would accept this even though it is beyond our
comprehension. But if the Bible nowhere articulates this
then this agruement has no longer any 'immunity'against
disagreement. Then, the Trinitarian might retort that
they do not believe in "three persons in one person."
We then would reply that the linking of the two texts
cannot be used to prove a Trinity of persons! Nowhere in
human experience is a person and at one and the
same time three. We therefore can be certain, on
both the Bible's authority and our God-given reason, that
the Trinity is agianst both.
||But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too
little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will
go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth
are from long ago, From the days of eternity.
appears to be from the New American Standard Version.
This definitely is a prophecy of where the Christ would
According to the Revised
Standard Version the "ruler's" origin is
not from "eternity" but "from old, from
ancient days." The above text then does not have to
mean that this one who was born as a man, Jesus Christ,
had no beginning and hence must be God and not a creature.
New Testament Trinity Proof
||Why does this man speak that way? He is
blaspheming; who can forgive sins but
We must point
out immediately to the writer of the above that we can
see no "proof" of "three persons in One
Still, is Mark 2:5-12 saying
that Jesus is "God"?
The Jews reasoned that because
only God can forgive sins and Jesus said to the child,
"your sins are forgiven," then Jesus was
claiming to be God.
But how did Jesus himself 'answer' the Jews' reasoning?
In verse 9 he asks them which it is easier to "say."
"Your sins are forgiven," or "Get up and
pick up your cot and walk"? Then in order to show
that he, as the "Son of man has authority to forgive
sins upon earth," Jesus says to the paralytic:
"I say to you, Get up, pick up your cot, and go to
So it was easier to say "Your sins
are forgiven" than to actually do the
healing where the man would then have to 'get up and
Notice that he, as the Son of man, had "authority"
to forgive sins. Did he have this "authority because
he was "God." Or was this authority given him
by someone else? Allow Peter to tell us which one it is.
At Acts 10:38 he says: "..Jesus who was from
Nazareth, how God annointed him with holy spirit and
power, and he went through the land doing good and
healing all those oppressed by the Devil; because God
was with him."
Yes, it was not because Jesus "was God" that he
could heal all, but because "God was with him."
And if God was with him, that is, was the authority
behind Jesus' healing works, which God was for it was God
that "annointed him with holy spirit and power"
then Jesus could also say "Your sins are forgiven"
as it was easier to say that than do
the healing. So if the harder 'healing' does not
make Jesus 'God' then nor did it when he said "Your
sins are forgiven"! This verse does not say Jesus
was God and certainly says nothing about "three
persons in One God." We fail to see this as anywhere
near a "proof text" for the Trinity!
We would also like to point out
this. When this kind of 'proof' is given by those who
believe in the Trinity then we might ask them-"In
what way are you using the term 'God'"?
They do not mean when they say "Jesus is God,"
that "Jesus is the Trinity" do they. They do
not believe that is so. So they must mean that Jesus is
'God' in the sense of what they must believe he is,
namely, "the second person of a consubstantial triad."
Is Mark 2:5-12 teaching us anything like that?
Or, are post-biblical thoughts and terms being read into
such texts? We would ask all who read such "proof
texts" offered by Trinitarians to keep this always
||In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. He was in the beginning with God.
Once again, only two beings are here in
view. Not three! We need not go into how this text can be
translated, or understood, that has been done elsewhere
on this site. Suffice to point out once more this text
says nothing about "three persons in One
God." So is this another "proof text"?
Please click here for more on
||For this cause therefore the Jews were
seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was
breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own
Father, making Himself equal with God.
||The Jews answered him, "We have a
law, and by that law He ought to die because He made
Himself out to be the Son of God."
||For it is written, "As I live, says
the Lord, every knee shall bow to
Me, And every tongue shall give praise to God."
||"Therefore also God highly exalted
Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every
name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under
the earth, and that every tongue should confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
We would, of course, refer you
to the above on Isaiah 45:23,24.
||"And there shall no longer be any
curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in
it, and His bond-servants shall [latreuo] serve Him." Jesus
worshipped in the highest sense of "latreuo"