# An interesting encounter with a Jehovah Winess



## Free Christian (Sep 29, 2013)

Hello everyone. Today I had a very interesting encounter with a Jehovah Witness who came to my door. Like usual he did not introduce himself for who he was or why he was there at my doorstep. First trying to give me a pamphlet as they often do. I asked him who he was and who he represented. He went to continue on with the pamphlet but I stopped him and said "you are a Jehovah Witness aren't you?".
He said "yes I am", so I again stopped him and asked how he reconciled his beliefs with following the teachings of a false prophet who, and which, the Bible plainly tells us to avoid and which the Bible condemns. He tried to tell me how Russel Taze was not one and so on but I recounted to him the times he had made statements about things that did not come to pass, as well as numerous other things. I also said how I believe Jesus is God and how he does not. He tried to side step it but when I pressed on he then tried to tell me things in the Bible that showed Jesus was not God. But the thing that stood out was when I said how Jesus is God. My stance stood upon how Jesus our Lord said the statement "I Am" in John 8 v 58 and how He freely accepted worship when people came to him. That all instances of others being worshipped was forbidden, but when it was to Jesus it was not forbidden. He then quoted from versions that did not show that, saying they only bowed down to show respect. I said, "no, in the KJV it clearly says they came and worshipped Him, Jesus accepted worship, Jesus was/is God!" He then said that the other versions were correct and clearly showed otherwise. It was at that moment, or just after it, that I realised the importance of those passages in the KJV where Jesus is worshipped and how had I not known that my argument for Christ being God would have been drastically weakened. It was upon those passages which I stood my ground and found myself saying these words to him "no, those that you quote from are incorrect, Jesus was worshipped, they did not just bow down, they worshipped Jesus as God". It was those scriptures where Jesus was worshipped which were the backbone and strength to my stance, my wall of defence. To me that was a very profound moment which struck a chord deep in my heart and mind. Witnessing to me greatly about the importance of scripture retaining the correct words. I praise God for bringing him to my doorstep.


----------



## BibleCyst (Sep 29, 2013)

That is wonderful. Would you mind posting the passages you used?


----------



## Free Christian (Oct 1, 2013)

Hello Rich. It was wonderful, as I had been recently looking into translations and the differences in the verses. It really struck home when I found my best defences lay best upon the KJV. Often during the discussion I referred to simply saying in the Gospels there are clear examples of Jesus openly accepting worship. I repeated the occasions such as those coming to Jesus for help or healing and so on. These occasions were Mathew 4 v 10 , Mathew 9 v 18, Mathew 20 v 20, Mark 5 v 6 and Luke 24 v 52. The examples of not worshipping anyone else were Acts 10 v 25-26 and Revelation 22 v 8-9. Sometimes I repeat a verse correctly but don't remember the verse number, im great with words but the opposite with numbers, but may say for example "it says in Mathew, that 
a leper came to Jesus and worshipped Him asking for help". The Jehovah witness knew the passages I meant and began to give reasons why the KJV was not the one to use. In fact he almost approved of others like the NIV and NAS and even quoted from them. It was clear to me though that the KJV was not one of those on his list! He was using them as examples of how Jesus was not worshipped, I was using the KJV to show He was! Did I have an impact upon the guy who came to my door? I don't know, but I can tell you this, when I mentioned Jesus saying "I AM" he was like a dumb man, he had no answer, he just looked at me. That was the only part of our conversation he had no answer and just looked at me speechless. It really stood out. I loved it so much that I repeated this three times, "Only One has the right to say I AM, and that is God, Jesus said I AM, Jesus IS GOD, ...I AM". I will be honest here and tell you that in the end I had to eventually ask him to leave. They bring that upon themselves though, as when the conversation is clearly over and any other person would politely leave they don't. But it was a very eye opening encounter and one I will remember well.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 2, 2013)

Thanks for posting that, Brett.

On this subject of the New World Translation of the JWs: Does anyone know where they can easily get an original Westcott & Hort Greek text? What I use is _The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures_, which is put out by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That’s the Greek text they deliberately use, as it is doctrinally weak on the deity of Christ, despite what some may aver.

I have written about the Unitarian, Dr. Vance Smith, whose presence on the W&H revision committee scandalized London in those days:

One of these highly significant changes from the Textus Receptus – “trifling alterations” Hort might say, perhaps – was the unwarranted deletion of the word “God” in the text of 1 Timothy 3:16, where the Scripture in speaking of Jesus talks of “the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh”. The Revisers replaced it with “who”. The Unitarian Dr. Smith later wrote,
The old reading [of 1 Tim 3:16] is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament.... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times....to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as “God manifested in the flesh”.* ....It has been frequently said that the changes of translation....are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view.... [A]ny such statement [is]....contrary to the facts.** (*_Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed_, by Dr. Vance Smith (London: 1881), pages 39, 47. Cited in _Revision Revised_, by Burgon, pages 515, 513. ** Ibid., page 45. 

The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,’ [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read ‘in the name.’ Moreover, *no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ.* [Emphasis added] (_Texts and Margins_, Smith, page 47. Cited in, _For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present_, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 1997), page 31.)​
A.G. Hobbs, in his Forward to the reprint of Burgon’s _The Revision Revised_, wrote,
Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed [in the face of the public outcry at his presence on the Revision Committee]. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages. (_The Revision Revised_, by John William Burgon (Centennial Edition, Fifth printing, 1991), Forward [no page #]. See also, _Life of Westcott_, Vol I, page 394.)​ 
All this to show that in the minds of some – and I focus on Unitarian Vance Smith in particular – on the 1881 Revision committee, what are said to be but insignificant minor changes are in fact serious attacks on the deity of Christ, and this from the mouth of one who helped create the Critical Text.


----------



## Logan (Oct 2, 2013)

This isn't an issue of Textus Receptus vs the Critical text, it is how the word is translated.

Matt 9:18, Matt 20:20, Mark 5:6, and Luke 24:52 all say Jesus was "worshipped" in the KJV.

Comparing with ESV (for example) it says "knelt", "kneeling", "fell down", "worshipping" in the respective passages. All the passages use this word:
proskyneō

Of which Strong's says:
1. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2. among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3. in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
4. used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
a. to the Jewish high priests
b. to God
c. to Christ
d. to heavenly beings
e. to demons

Interestingly, ESV also translates this Greek word as "worship" (or a variant of "worship") in some ten other cases where the context makes it very clear that worship is meant rather than just kneeling. The same is true with the NIV (in many places it says "worship" as opposed to "kneel") and the NASB. Again, it's not a Textus Receptus issue, it's a translation issue, and I think you'll find that any modern translations still give plenty of ammo on Jesus receiving worship.

Steve, I know you don't like the Critical Text (I've seen your other, sometimes extensive posts on it), but I'd like to point out that it seems no one supporting Textus Receptus will comment on things like John 1:18, where the Critical Text unambiguously calls Jesus God. I just don't see a conspiracy to tamper with the Bible. Note that I don't trust ungodly men to perform textual criticism on the Bible. However, I do trust the godly men who have reviewed the work and I do think the current texts, that have variants, manuscripts cited, and reasons given for the variants chosen, to be remarkably helpful. We don't just blindly accept Westcott and Hort, we test it.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 2, 2013)

I live in a town that is 80% Mormon, but lately the Jehovah's Witnesses have been going around trying to get converts. It is really amusing to hear Mormons complain about how pushy and rude the JW's are. No sense of irony whatsoever.


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 2, 2013)

The JW's have a place in their very own NWT of their scriptures that fails to support their doctrine of Christ. For instance, in Revelation 1, the JW will readily affirm that the "Alpha and Omega," the "beginning and the end," and the "first and the last" all refer to Jehovah. However, when they arrive at verses 17 and 18 of the same chapter, the stumble.

Revelation 1:17b-18a
...I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore...

If you ask them how God died, they have no answer. For those who would be willing to come to the light, this should be a no-brainer, but many still persist in their unbelief; being more willing to treat the text like a lawyer.


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 2, 2013)

I thought I would add this:

There is cause for doubt to be in the mind of the JW since a 1950 & 1961 editions of their NWT would have Jesus worshiped in Hebrews 1:6.




They changed that in later editions.

It is interesting to note that they claim their NWT is a translation rendered from the original languages.




Apparently, the original authors (not translators) thought worship was good enough for their rendering.

I told a JW about this once. He looked me in the eye and said, "So what!" Then he took me to other scriptures and that hardly had anything to do with the discrepancy I had pointed out. Then he stormed out of my house; telling me he had important work to do in my neighborhood. I'll never allow another JW back into my home again.


----------



## Reformguy (Oct 2, 2013)

Bruce Metzger has an interesting writing on Jehovah's Witnesses:

The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal by Bruce M. Metzger

http://www.newreformationpress.com/freebies/Bruce%20Metzger%20-%20The%20Jehovah%27s%20Witnesses%20and%20Jesus%20Christ.pdf


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 2, 2013)

Hello Logan!

Welcome to PB! You _are_ right about the worship matter being a translational issue, and most of the modern CT versions do have it right, for Vance Smith’s point concerned the 1881 Revised Version _in English_ which the committee produced and did alter in Philippians 2:10 to suit their agenda. At that point in time this was a _major_ opposition to the received text, which was more important to most than matters in the Greek.

I ought to go on the record with respect to the saying that I “don't like the Critical Text” for there is a lot more nuance than that bald statement shows! In fact, I _like_ some of the translations in the modern Bibles based on the CT (I think the KJVO Police may start shooting at me now!), as they bring out the meaning of the Greek or Hebrew clearly, and I have even written some verses from the NIV 1984 in the margin of my Bible. I have a number of Bibles I use to compare readings (NIV NASB ESV NKJV MKJV LB) by my desk. My wife, who is a true lover of God’s word (and can read the modern Greek), uses the NIV (1984) – although she has been around me long enough to know one of my primary concerns is that words, phrases, and verses should not be removed from the Bible on the basis of patently inferior mss, which Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have shown themselves to be (3036 differences between the two in the gospels alone, per Hoskier’s count in his _Codex B and It Allies_, Vol 2).

The modern CT-based Bibles are legitimate and worthy Bibles, able to be used of the Lord in the saving of souls and the sustaining of churches in holiness, though the repercussions of the rivaling of the Ecclesiastical Text with abbreviated books of the NT (the CT Greek editions are known for the abundance of omissions in them) have impacted both the church’s and the general culture’s confidence that God has indeed given His people a reliable Bible, down to the minutiae.

However, the more serious matters – as concern us today – _are_ in the Greek text, such as the 1 Timothy 3:16 excision of “God” to be replaced by “He” or “He who” – and which Smith boasted over! So as not to bulk up the thread I will just refer to a post showing John Burgon on 1 Timothy 3:16.

Pickering on 1 Tim 3:16 is shorter, so I will put that here:
The argument from statistical probability enters here with a vengeance. Not only do the extant MSS present us with one text form enjoying a 95% majority, but the remaining 5% do not represent a single competing text form. The minority MSS disagree as much (or more) among themselves as they do with the majority. For any two of them to agree so closely as do P75 and B is an oddity. We are not judging, therefore, between two text forms, one representing 95% of the MSS and the other 5%. Rather, we have to judge between 95% and a fraction of 1% (comparing the Majority Text with the P75, B text form for example). Or to take a specific case, in 1 Tim. 3:16 some 600 Greek MSS (besides the Lectionaries) read "God" while only seven read something else. Of those seven, three have private readings and four agree in reading "who." So we have to judge between 99% and 0.6%, "God" versus "who." It is hard to imagine any possible set of circumstances in the transmissional history sufficient to produce the cataclysmic overthrow in statistical probability required by the claim that "who" is the original reading.​ 
But to get to your statement “it seems no one supporting Textus Receptus will comment on things like John 1:18, where the Critical Text unambiguously calls Jesus God”. I’m sorry, but you’re stepping into a minefield here, Logan. That variant, which has only a minuscule _fraction_ of mss to support it, is a decidedly gnostic reading.

In Jay Green’s little book, _The Gnostics, The New Versions, and The Deity of Christ_, after he lists the rival readings in the various versions – which in the Greek are:
ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς

KJV “the only begotten Son”
HBSC “the One and Only Son”

ὁ μονογενὴς Θεός (sometimes without the article):

NASB “the only begotten God”
NIV 1984 “God the One and Only”​ 
Green goes on to say,
ANALYSIS: The patristic fathers were insistent upon calling Jesus God. The Gnostic opponents were intent on depicting Jesus as a created Being, an inferior god. John 1 became a battleground because of the many references to Christ as God. Burgon says that the Gnostic Valentinus (c. 150 A.D.) devised the clever theory that the Word and the Son of God were not the same person. The Word, according to the Gnostics, was created to be the "artificer", the creator to do the things that God has planned, implanting in Him the germ of all things. The Gnostics said that Christ was 'the Beginning,' the first of God's creation, and Valentinus referred to Him as 'the Only-begotten God' and said that He was the entire essence of all the subsequent worlds (Aeons). In their lexicon, the Word was a god (and the Mormons still refer to Christ as 'a god').

The NASB follows p66, p75, Aleph, B, C.... L and 33, and puts "Only begotten God" in the text. The NAB has both the Son and God. The others seize on only-begotten to make their changes. And admittedly, the patristic fathers at times used the expression "only begotten God" (Burgon says Irenaeus did so twice, but four times as Son; yet note carefully that NU unequivocally claims Irenaeus for only-begotten God, leaving the impression that this important patristic witness did not recognize only-begotten Son as authentic since Irenaeus used "only-begotten Son" four times, and "only-begotten God" twice, why not use the NU tactic and claim that he favored "only-begotten Son" as God-breathed? Burgon states that Theodotus of the second century is the first to quote John 1:18, and he quotes it as we know it from the vast majority of the mss.; but others often used the term "only-begotten God" interchangeably with "only-begotten Son". John Gill opines that if "only-begotten God" is to be used, it should be punctuated the "only Begotten, God", with which Leon Morris agrees.

But all this is keeping out of sight the fact that only seven Egyptian mss. have only-begotten God, and 2,000 mss. have only begotten Son. The critics put their trust in Egypt. Is it not more logical to put trust in the rest of Christendom where only-begotten Son appears in every manuscript all over the habitable world?

The logical conclusion from common use of language is that God is eternal, and therefore God cannot be begotten. Morris and others contend that monogenes by etymology does not refer to begetting, but to a unique relationship. The bottom line, however, as always, is the undeniable fact that only 7 manuscripts created in Egypt, out of thousands of manuscripts and lectionaries, have the words preferred by the Gnostics, the Arians later, the Socinians, the Unitarians, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in our day.

The critical apparatus of the United Bible Society 'Text', after citing the Egyptian manuscripts above, also lists as 'authorities' Valentinus, Clement, Origen (all three of them Gnostics who believed Christ was a created being), Arius (who said that Christ was created before the beginning of the world), and Theodotus. But they are mistaken in Theodotus, who quoted it as the vast majority of manuscripts have it. Can a case be strong when one has to find its evidence in a handful of Gnostic-influenced manuscripts, then reinforced only by Gnostic and non-Trinitarian authors? (pp 73, 74)​ 


The point the gnostics wanted to make was that "Christ the god" was created / begotten, and not the eternal One. 

And then from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’, _The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind_, his essay, “The Prologue of John and the Egyptian Manuscripts: John 1:18 as a Case Study in the Canonical Approach”:
The versional evidence for the υἱὸς reading is rather impressive: it_[SUP]pl[/SUP]_, vg, syr[SUP]c,h,pal[/SUP], arm, eth[SUP]PP[/SUP], geo., slav. That is, it is found in one of the very earliest Syriac versions and is at the very heart of Western catholic ecclesiastical usage, as witnessed by nearly all of the old Latin and all of the Vulgate witnesses, but two. Added to the witness of the Byzantine Greek MSS and the lectionaries of the Greek Church, one finds in this variant the comprehensive and exclusive affirmation of both Eastern and Western ecclesiastical traditions. This was, in fact, the “received reading,” in the very widest sense of the concept. (p 110)​ 
I am not gung ho against the CT and the modern versions as they are used by pastors and saints in their pilgrimage through this evil world to City Celestial, for theirs are still Holy Bibles, and the Spirit of God works mightily through them. I am gung ho, however, against the intent of the devil in sowing profound discord among the people of God through this business, and I am also gung ho to defend the reliability of the gold standard of God’s preserved word, the Greek TR and Hebrew MT, and their faithful translation in the AV, though I try not to get into fights over this now as I am _very_ busy with other work presently – namely teaching on Revelation (from the amil view). But I figured I could take a little time out for this, hoping it doesn’t go on too long.

Good to see you here, Logan – I appreciate your irenic and knowledgeable comments.


----------



## Free Christian (Oct 2, 2013)

I ask myself this. In facing an enemy, what would I prefer? To have all chambers loaded or just a few?
Or, to have the enemy approaching and go to the hill and find the tanks that should have been there, that were there, are now jeeps?
To ask, "where are the tanks that were here, we need them?"
And get the reply, "we changed them over for jeeps, but there are some tanks on another hill a few miles to the south! We still have, some!"


----------



## Logan (Oct 3, 2013)

Steve,
Thank you for the welcome and your explanation. I will try my best to avoid minefields 

Brett,
I'm going to point out that it shouldn't just be a matter of having more ammo, but having "useful" and "true" ammo. If the former were the case, why don't we make a translation where every time the disciples "sayeth" unto Jesus, we make it "prayeth". I mean, that gives us more ammo to support the case that the disciples prayed to Jesus and thus he is God, right? No, you'd rather want to know what the original said, and did the English translation get it right? 

So the question to be asked, is did the KJV get it right when it translated every instance of this Greek word, proskyneō, as "worship". I actually do believe this was the case but only because they understood the word "worship" in a broader sense than we do today: in the sense of a sign of respect and acknowledgment of worth as well as worship as of a deity. Therefore, I think many modern translations are more clear for today's English speakers. 

Here's a clear example of what I mean: look at the same Greek word in Matt 18:26, where the ungrateful servant "worshipped" (KJV) his master and begged for more time to pay his debt. The context makes it clear that this is not divine worship (ESV says "fell on his knees", which is more clear to today's reader in my mind).

Using some of your passages, for example, in Matt 9:18, Calvin says:
"Worship, or adoration, is here put for *kneeling*, as is evident from the words of Mark and Luke: for Jairus did not render divine honor to Christ, but treated him with respect as a prophet of God; and we all know how common a practice kneeling was among eastern nations." [emphasis mine]
and of Matt 20:20 he says that they were "bowing down" and "this timid insinuation proves that they were conscious of something wrong." Was the "kneeling" in this situation meant of worship of Jesus as divine? It doesn't appear so to me. 

However, in Luke 24:52 I think the context is clear that real "worship" is meant here is not just a sign of respect. And there are many more passages where this is the case, and in this, I believe our modern English Bibles get it right by using the word "worship".

My point being that just because the KJV translators used "worship" in all of these instances, doesn't mean we should impose our understanding of the word today back into the text. The ammo is only good if they aren't blanks, and the tanks only good if they aren't really jeeps underneath.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Oct 3, 2013)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> What I use is The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, which is put out by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That’s the Greek text they deliberately use, as it is doctrinally weak on the deity of Christ, despite what some may aver.



There are two versions of this that I am aware of. The 1969 and the 1985 versions. They can be downloaded below.

1985 Kingdom Interlinear Translation 2
Kingdom Interlinear-Greek Scriptures 1969


----------



## Free Christian (Oct 4, 2013)

Hello Steve. The ammo is only good if they are not blanks? Or the tanks jeeps underneath? Why would they be? Is there any of those passages that you would suggest are that? Blanks or fakes? The words in the KJV being blanks or fakes. If not then why the comment? 
Should in the light of what you say, then should I discount my encounter as just an encounter like any other everyday encounter? That the feeling of impression upon me after it was just my vain imagination running away with me? Believe me, I never say things like that for nothing. Very very rare for me to make a comment like that. With all due respect, as you are an Elder, im as far apart from your comments on the matter as east is from west.


----------



## Logan (Oct 4, 2013)

Brett,
The post was not from Steve, it was from me so please don't direct any frustration toward him. By the way, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I want you to have all the ammo you can get.



Free Christian said:


> Is there any of those passages that you would suggest are that? Blanks or fakes? The words in the KJV being blanks or fakes. If not then why the comment?



Not fakes, I just posit that you are misunderstanding what the translators intended in some of those passages. Please re-read my post above, I gave you three examples I believe, including a quote from Calvin (though obviously he didn't use KJV) so it's not just me saying this.


----------



## Free Christian (Oct 5, 2013)

Hello Logan and sorry Steve, sometimes things go fuzzy. In a post somewhere here on this forum I said how I had had a few accidents in my youth, that's one of the things it does. No frustration vented to anyone though, seriously none at all. I do however stand by what I said and if that comes across that way then perhaps it is a cultural thing. Here we talk like that and no offense is seen in it. Sorry if it seems that way though and I will in the future take the differences into consideration before posting. Again Steve, oops, I cant help it at times, nothing I can do about it, again sorry.
I do though find the new versions such as the ESV in particular, the one you mentioned, to be shockers to say the least. I find it hard to believe they are even used by reformers. The ESV literally butchers the Old Testament in many many places. In 1 Samuel 1 v 24 there are 3 bullocks in the KJV, in the ESV it says "a 3 year old bullock". In 1 Samuel 6 v 19 there were 50,070 people slew, in the ESV (and NIV for that matter) it says there were only 70! Big difference from 50,070 to just 70! In Exodus 14 v 25 the chariot wheels were taken off, but the ESV says they were "clogged". Judges 14 v 15 "on the seventh day", ESV and NIV say on "the 4th day". In the ESV Lucifer is omitted and replaced with "day star". The ESV also omits part of the Lords prayer in Luke 11 v 2-4! The ESV leans towards gender neutrality, see Mathew 5 v 13, 19 v 23 and 24, Romans 3 v 4, 3 v 28, 5 v 7. 1 Corinthians 2 v 11, 2 v 13-14. Acts 17 v 25. As well as many others. The ESV omits I believe thousands of words in the New Testament! Sometimes entire verses! This is done by the NIV as well, though how many words and verses I am not sure. The ESV says in 1 Peter 2 v 2 that we "grow into salvation". I never knew that we "grow into salvation"? Im pretty sure the NIV teaches the same. I find the differences staggering to say the least. It is interesting to how people, not inferring you, see the New Versions. A Rodney J Decker from The Central Baptist Theological Seminary talking on the value of the ESV in reference to having the perfect Word of God, the Bible said "such a Bible does not exist". If so then how can I be sure anything in particular in it is real? Did God slew 50,070 or just 70, did the wheels come off or did they just clog up, do I really have to grow up into salvation and that perhaps I am not yet grown into it and when will I know I have? Did Jesus really say all the things I read or did He not, perhaps they were just added by some translator? If those omitted verses really were not said then why did someone add to God's word in writing them? How corrupt would that be!
I wondered for a number of days why that Jehovah Witness quoted from some of the new versions to me? Then I searched and found out why. Two translations in particular supported his arguments, the NAB and the NIV. They agree with their New World Translation in so many places it is unbelievable. Mathew 8 v 29, 17 v 21, 18 v 11, 19 v 9, 27 v 35. Mark 6 v 11, 9 v 44 & 46, 11 v 26, 15 v 28. Luke 2 v 33, 4 v 4, 9 v 55 & 56, 17 v 36, 23 v 17, 23 v 28. John 3 v 15, 5 v 3 & 4, 6 v 47, 16 v 16. Acts 2 v 30, 7 v 37, 8 v 37, 24 v 7,. Romans 1 v 16, 8 v 1, 11 v 6 and many many more. All against, opposition to the same verses in the KJV.
As I understand too the ESV comes from the same lineage as the RSV. In light of it all from what you say, if I misunderstood the passages I used should I go to the Jehovah Witness and say how sorry I was as his interpretation was correct and mine was wrong? Ethically that would be the correct thing to do wouldn't it? I fully believe that Jesus was worshipped, that He accepted worship and that so many of the new translations which have gained so much ground, even sad to say amongst reformers, are nothing but abominations. Butchering Gods Word. A while back I questioned here on this site if there was a new version like the KJV that was true to doctrine and truly honoured God. My searches have revealed to me NO, there is not. I don't think that those who read from them are not saved, or weak, or lost. But I do believe those versions, some worse than others, are not full, true, faithful versions of Gods Word. Some have very dubious lineage, dodgey original manuscript translators. Cannot recall who which said what, Wecott or Hort, but they said things like "that vile Textus Receptus" "surely no one believes the literal history of Genesis". And yet some of their writings were used in some of the new translations, unbelievable!
Again sorry to Steve, I feel real bad about that, honestly, and I cannot say sorry enough. I hate it when that happens and it annoys me to no end. That's what happens when your young and reckon your bullet proof. 
Sorry too if any find this post seems to be purposefully antagonistic or my/our Aussie bush ways of communicating the same.


----------



## Logan (Oct 5, 2013)

Brett,

Thank you for being gracious. I appreciate your last post but don't think you understand my previous ones yet.

Ignore the ESV, NIV, NASB for a while. Just focus on King James.

I am claiming that you misunderstand what the KJV means when it says "worship" in certain places. Answer this question first: what does "worshipped" mean in Matt 18:26? 

For example, on Matt 9:18, 

Poole's commentary says "worshipped him with civil worship, or respect". 

Calvin says "Worship, or adoration, is here put for kneeling, as is evident from the words of Mark [5:22] and Luke [8:41]: for Jairus did not render divine honor to Christ, but treated him with respect as a prophet of God; and we all know how common a practice kneeling was among eastern nations." 

Hendriksen says "We are perhaps justified in interpreting the ruler's behavior as an expression of high respect for Jesus.."

Henry says he "bowed the knee to him, and gave him all imaginable respect."

Neither Ryle or Trapp mention the phrase.

So, none of these commentators understand the word "worshipped" in this passage as meant of divine worship, but rather respect, bowing down, kneeling, etc. not to mention that the parallel passages both say that Jairus fell at Jesus' feet. Given my discussion in post #5 of the Greek term, and my discussion in post #12 of how "worship" was formerly understood in a broader sense, and especially given Matt 18:26, don't you think it's at least possible that you are misunderstanding what the KJV translators intended to be understood by "worship"?

So yes, the Jehovah's Witness appears to be correct about this passage. HOWEVER, there are a dozen or so other passages that are quite clear that divine worship is intended of Jesus. Both the context, and the translated word "worship" make that clear. So what I've been saying is that I want you to use the correct ammo, not just what you think is ammo.

The ESV, RSV, NASB, NIV thing is a completely separate issue. Suffice it to say that translation is a difficult thing and decisions have to be made. For example, in Hebrew the word "Lucifer" means literally "shining one, morning star, light-bearer". The KJV translators chose to just leave the Hebrew word in there untranslated, some of the other versions chose to translate the word. Yet all the commentators I have say that this "Lucifer" means "shining one" and refers to the King of Babylon (Trapp specifically says it does not refer to Beelzebub). Here is an unfortunate example of where people put their own interpretation back into the Bible and now "Lucifer" is synonymous with "Satan" in many Christian churches. There is much more to be said but I'll refrain for now. Suffice it to say that if you believe the KJV is the standard, then by implication everything else will be wrong. I'd like you to reconsider that stance.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 5, 2013)

These are also a few passages I love to present to JWs. 

Joh 5:16    And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.Joh 5:17    But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.Joh 5:18    Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

The Jews knew who Jesus claimed to be. 

Joh 20:24    But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.Joh 20:25    The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.Joh 20:26    And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.Joh 20:27    Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.Joh 20:28    And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.Joh 20:29    Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 5, 2013)

Bret,
You might also appreciate John Gerstner's booklet on the topic. You can read it here. Teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses by Dr. John H. Gerstner | RPCNA Covenanter


----------



## Logan (Oct 7, 2013)

Thanks for your posts, Randy, I think they are more helpful than mine. I'm feeling like I haven't been doing much good in this thread so perhaps I should drop out of the discussion. I want to be helpful but also don't want to stir up dissension. 

Bret, suffice it to say, I think there are better and very clear verses that could be used. Say, Matt 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, Heb 1:6, for example. I pray you will have more such encounters and that God will give your defense of Scripture grace in their eyes.


----------



## Free Christian (Oct 8, 2013)

Hello Logan. I do fully understand what you have been saying all along. I still ask myself though, How can one be certain, that a person who knew Jesus was the Saviour and could perform miracles attributed to God and forgive sins, knowing this and coming to Him did not worship Him and instead just showed respect as they would to any other in authority? I know some or many commentators say they just virtually bowed down. But I ask myself, If it was me and I knew this was the Saviour, who did things attributed to God and forgave sins as God, hearing of the miracles from others and believing it so much that I go to Him for miraculous healing would I just bow down or would I worship Him? To me in the light of that, that Jesus was known for His miracles and well known to those who believed, forgiving sins, healing, preaching the things of God as no other ever had I find it hard to believe that He was not worshipped. In the way I believe He was. 
I imagine hearing all He did, seeing some of it myself, Him feeding thousands with a few fish, what would I do? Myself I don't think I could get myself low enough to the ground and worship Him.
I understand what others are saying and even if I do not agree I still respect you all.


----------

