# Help Needed



## love2read (Sep 6, 2005)

Please help me out with this one!!

Sunday 28th August we had unexpected visitors. Two jehova's witnesses. They wanted to share, so did I.

We started talking about the divinity of Christ and I quoted the first verses of John 'and the Word was God'. He then said that their translation says 'and the Word was a god'. I told him that the Greek text doesn't say 'a god' but 'God'. He didn't have an answer at that time.

Today I received a letter from this man explaining why 'a' can be added to the text. *I need a (scholarly) explanation why it can not be added.*

In the mean while I am working on a study for this man concerning: 
- the Divine Names of the Lord Jesus, 
- the Divine Attributes of the Lord Jesus, 
- the Divine tasks of the Lord Jesus, 
- Jesus is worshiped as God in the Bible and 
- OT texts on Jahweh which are in the NT applied to the Lord Jesus. 
I have 4 pages so far.

All help is welcome


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by love2read_
> Please help me out with this one!!
> 
> Sunday 28th August we had unexpected visitors. Two jehova's witnesses. They wanted to share, so did I.
> ...




jeroen,
Let me suggest something; do not give them the home court advatage. Take back the baton. if they want to talk, tell them you will discuss as long as you can discuss from your perspective. fronm there, I take the conversation from the secondary to the primary; Gods sovereignty and the doctrine of election. The elective decree will destroy their Arminianism and render their secondary arguments futile.

Do not play their cat and mouse game. Go right at election.


----------



## crhoades (Sep 6, 2005)

Ditto to what Scott said...

for a John 1:1 resource, try here: http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm


----------



## sola_gratia (Sep 6, 2005)

Ah, surprisingly I've been dealing with some JWs as well. They can definitely be a hand full.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 6, 2005)

I have had a similar conversation. 

They add that to deny the diety of Christ and focus on Jehovah.

However, since it is Greek; there would be no definite article "a". The only definite article in greek is 'the'. Definite articles in english are 'a' and 'the'. Not so in Greek. So when translating from Greek to English if there is a definite article in Greek, it will be translated 'the'. However, In John 1:1, there is no definite article. So there is no 'the'. Sometimes when we translate from Greek, we have to add an 'a'. That is only when it doesnt make sense. If something was literally translated and said, "This is book"; we would have to add an 'a' which would say, 'this is a book'. However, this passage says literally, "and the Word was God". No 'a' is needed. It makes sense, so no 'a' is needed. If it makes no sense, then an 'a' can be added to help it make sense in English.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 6, 2005)

Jeroen,

First, I would echos Scott's advice, with one small change. The place to begin is on "what must I do to be saved?" Even election is secondary to that - because JWs are not even as "orthodox" as Arminians. You will in short order get the JWs to admit (without using these _exact_ words) that salvation is by works, and because of that, there is no assurance. You can engage them on a number of fronts from there.

As for the dreaded JW "a" argument, I would suggest that you ask the JWs to look at John 1:18 "No one has seen God at any time." Ask them to whom "God" is referring. When they say "the Father" or "God," then ask them why that is the case there, but not in John 1:1. The structure in John 1:18 is exactly the same as in John 1:1. In neither case is the article used.

[Edited on 9/6/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 6, 2005)

You guys,
I'm telling you, do not waste your time playing their game; go directly to the doctrine of election.

Ditto to Fredster.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## JohnV (Sep 6, 2005)

Jeroen:

I would also ditto what Scott said. 

I would only add that you stay on your topic, whether it is election or the places in Scripture where the divinity of Christ is plain. Don't hurry with your texts or explanations, let them say what they will, and then continue right where you left off. They really don't care what you have to say, or what you object to. They are on a word or time income points scheme; its not what you say, its what they say that counts for points. They don't have to listen, they just have to present, and that is usually all they have on their minds. Don't try to defeat them, because you can't defeat stubborn stupidity; just try to rescue one or two of them if you are able. If not, then what you presented to them is against them, and may visit them again later on. So prayer in preparation and as follow-up is important.


----------



## crhoades (Sep 6, 2005)

Ask them if in Christ is hidden all of the riches of wisdom and knowledge then where does that leave "God"?

Never thought of using that passage that way before...will it stand up to scrutiny? Scrutinizers whaddya say?


----------



## Robin (Sep 6, 2005)

Jeroen: 

Scott, Fred and the boys all have great points! But here's a different one that (I think) works stunningly well. (Maybe it's new for some?)
Forget discussing, proving, etc. Christ's identity. the Trinity... and all those familiar "theological ping-pong" bouts. They're prepared to deal with these....and you will NOT win, due to the intense mental programming they receive.

Try this instead: Ask them "what IS the Gospel?" Keep it simple. Hold there and politely insist you want to know "what Gospel" they are proclaiming. (stressing, being sincere and very nice....)

This will surprise them and put them completely OFF-TRACK. (To date, they have no rebuttal.)

Once you get a response which may be a variety of answers: " the good news" "Jehovah loves you" "Jehovah has a wonderful plan..." or whatever.... ask them if it's OK to check what it is IN SCRIPTURE? (Be very nice, curious, but strong and make them read the passages.)

This approach works out to "20 questions" put to them; is a long description so here's a link to the tactic:

http://www.geocities.com/heartland/estates/8364/jwarticle3.html 


After all is said and done, what happens is they must read from Scripture, many places that describe and proclaim the Gospel and compare it to what they are offering. They know there is only ONE Gospel. Even if they don't agree....they must go home and sleep on it.

A thing most Christians miss when arguing with JW's is, the JW is utterly focused to turn-off whatever we say if it's on their "training menu." They receive constant badgering to defend issues like Trinity; Christ is God, etc., and are admonished to tune-out anything they can't answer. (Remember, they are taught we are "Satanic.")

The better thing about confronting them about which Gospel, is that it puts them in direct contact with the Gospel itself. (Arguing about the Trinity is NOT the Gospel, btw.) 

It will be curious if they do address this one. That means they must examine the real Gospel in order to affirm their false one. (A dangerous thing for an unbeliever to do.)

The confrontation of the Gospel leads directly into thoughts about salvation; Christ's identity; the Trinity --- which I think are better at the back-end of the discussion. 

After years of dealing with JW's I've noticed they pour completely different meanings into words like "God" "Trinity" "Salvation." It's possible to spend countless hours haggling on these terms - yet never come into face-front contact with the one thing that has the power to save them: The Gospel.



Robin


----------



## Robin (Sep 6, 2005)

PS....

I don't know what Fred or Scott would think of this....but, to note how times have changed....out here, the JW's come to the door with NIV bibles (yes, NIV) and Norm Geisler on their study-bibliographies! This means they've made a strong connection to Arminian theology and even apologetics. (They're also downplaying the Watchtower.) (Wierd)

Somehow JW's (and Mormons) are using the Bible to support their twisted theologies.



r.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Sep 7, 2005)

I guarentee you that the Bible Version from which they were showing you John 1:1 was the "New World Translation." it is one of two versions that they have "in house" for them to use in witnessing and devotions. 




> John 1:1. How many Gods are there? The most famous distortion in the NWT is John 1:1. The NWT inserts the word "a" in front of the second God in this verse. So the NWT reads "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Obviously this is to denigrate Jesus. They will be prepared to defend why they put "a" into the text. There are ways to debate them on this. But a much more powerful approach, one that they will not be prepared for is the following. Sort of scratch your head and ask them, "How many true Gods are there?" Get them to agree that there is only one true God by going to such passages as Isa. 44:6, 8. (There are several other pertinent passages, including Deut. 4:35,39, Isa. 43:11, and John 17:3-5.) Then ask, "Can we agree that something that is not true, is false?" They should agree. Then say, "I understand that you have a strange wording for John 1:1. What does the Watchtower Bible say?" After they read it out loud, ask them, "OK. Is Jesus a true God or a false God?" They absolutely cannot answer this. If they say Jesus is a true God, then there are 2 Gods. But they cannot say he is a false God either, because John says he is (in their Bible) "a" god. (Jesus cannot be a false god like the golden calf or like the "so-called gods" mentioned in 1 Cor 8:5.) They might say that Jesus is "lesser god." If so, then ask, "Is Jesus a lesser true God or a lesser false God?" Emphasize this point as many times as you can in the meetings. Even if they do not bring up this passage, be sure that you do.




Quote from -- Helping Jehovah's Witnesses Find Freedom in Jesus

http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/jw.html

The site offers many other aids in talking to JW's


----------



## Robin (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JKLeoPCA_
> I guarentee you that the Bible Version from which they were showing you John 1:1 was the "New World Translation." it is one of two versions that they have "in house" for them to use in witnessing and devotions.



Look again, John....it is a real NIV! (Not their NWT.) They even brag about how "free" they are to go to any bookstore and choose which translations to read. I suspect they either have a special edition made (??) or something else is going on. Seriously, it is an NIV.

Anybody know more about this? 

r.


----------



## andreas (Sep 8, 2005)

**Today I received a letter from this man explaining why 'a' can be added to the text. I need a (scholarly) explanation why it can not be added**

No one can add or take away from the word of God.The last book to be written and complete the bible, was Revelation,and the warning is clear.There was no 'a' in the original.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book": Rev.22:18

andreas.


----------



## sola_gratia (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JKLeoPCA_
> ...



I was just speaking with one the other day and I was surprised to find that her bible didn't have the "a" in John 1:1. I am not sure what translation she was using though. I will have to ask her. I noticed that they have started to speak less about the WT org and anything to do with it. Maybe a new tactic to make them look less like a cult and more like another christian denomination?

[Edited on 9-8-2005 by sola_gratia]

[Edited on 9-8-2005 by sola_gratia]


----------



## Ravens (Sep 8, 2005)

I've taken four semesters of Greek in college, but really, that was just enough training in Greek to let me know how much I am indeed ignorant of... so this is just a thought, and certainly not offered with any degree of certainty. 

But I think that the phrasing John used in John 1:1 is the best possible way to say what he is trying to say to communicate an orthodox understanding of the Trinity.

When he says "the Word was with God" he is obviously not talking about "the Divine nature" in the abstract, but of the personal "God", referring to the Father.

Once he's established that meaning of Theos there, I would think that leaving the definite article out in the next clause, and saying "Theos" instead of "ho Theos" is exactly what he needed to do to curb error in the opposite direction, i.e. Sabellianism.

Its the best way to say that the Word was indeed "God" without identifying the person of the Word with the person of the Father.

But anyway, the whole thing is really a smokescreen. Even if we "gave up" on that verse to prove orthodox Trinitarianism (which we shouldn't, don't get me wrong) the Deity of Christ is explicitly proved so many times in John, the epistles, the first chapter of Hebrews, and revelation... really, tones of places. And when it isn't explicitly stated, its implicitly understood. And even then, there's the offices of Christ, the worship given to Him, His actions, etc., all of which point to His divinity.

Really all of Scritpure is woven in Trinitarian fabric, its too hard to miss, and the only thing that leads to its denial is a hardened heart and a mind untouched by grace.


----------



## Robin (Sep 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sola_gratia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



BINGO! Mormons on onto this as well. In fact, they've been doing PR for years to make that crossing.

My guess (and I intend to get firmer clues) is they do NOT need their messed-up translations any more since their definitions of theological words are so rubbery --- many if not all words are similar to Arminian definitions. (!) The last JW I spoke with admitted salvation was "salvation" except we can lose it; Jesus was an example (He didn't actually do anything on the cross.)

Be assured both these cults covet real "Christian" associations...they want to leave Watchtower and Joseph Smith behind.

r.

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by Robin]


----------



## sola_gratia (Sep 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/heartland/estates/8364/jwarticle3.html
> 
> Robin



Robin:

I read through this a few times until I became familiar with the information. I talked to a JW today(My school is full of them and they are always trying to convert me...they call me "the protestant" and "Luther"  ) and the method is quite effective. I found myself tweaking it a little bit as I went along, but for the most part stuck to the method. It seemed as though the person I was talking to was not even familiar with those scriptures. 

You could slowly see the barriers start to fall, and when all was said and done they agreed that I was correct. Also, the amount of brainwashing they recieve became quite apparent; when the person continued to cling on for dear life even after admiting they were wrong.

Despite the fact that they poisoned the well and made several strawman arguments I could tell they had a lot on their mind. I was happy and I praised God for allowing me to present His wisdom so clear and correctly. 

So, thanks for providing the information. It was really helpful.



-Levi


----------



## Robin (Sep 11, 2005)

Glory to the Name of Christ!! 

How powerful the Gospel is IF it is clearly proclaimed.

The article emphasizes something that gets neglected in apologetics school: the real, human experience of relating. Being down-to-earth; allowing the other to speak; kindly listening; allow the opponent to "save face" while trusting that the Gospel will go beyond human effort and bring about God's fruit.

The Apostle Paul taught we are to "be all things to all men, in order to pursuade some..." This means we should work to understand what the unbeliever's (JW) life is really like; compassionately and skillfully adjusting our tactics to these considerations. Yet, unswervingly delivering the "message of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5.) Imagine that? Using The Gospel in apologetics!

The typical Jehovah Witness puts-in at least 100 hours a month, working for salvation; they are dying with Bibles in their hand!

God bless you, Levi, for availing yourself to God's call in those moments. No matter the outcome, you did not doubt the power of the Gospel. The Lord will honor His Name, forever!

[Edited on 9-11-2005 by Robin]


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 11, 2005)

See this page:

 [url]http://www.challengemin.org/out3.html [/url]

Mr. Barnes was at one time on of the senior JW's in Great Britain. I've heard him speak and visited with him many times over the years. His tack on dealing with JW's is a bit varied from many others. However, it is very effective. Most who write about witnessing to JW's, Mormons, any cult, have never been on the other side of the fence. He's been one and God has saved. Him. I will not repeat his stuff. He's already said it.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sola_gratia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...




Awesome!!! I have studied JW theology for a while, but had not come across this particular "20 questions" tactic. I am thrilled to hear how well it can work! I need to spend some time mastering this particular method of presenting the Gospel. This looks like a really good method to use with JWs.

Thank you for sharing, Robin!


----------



## Robin (Sep 14, 2005)

I wanted to add something, guys....

That "20 Questions" about the Gospel tactic does work so well...here's a heads-up.

Keep in mind (if you're not already) that many JW's (as Mormons and Jews) have a HUGE weight of potential loss, if they become converted, which include: alienation of family, friends, spouses, job loss, real-personal shaming from peer groups. All this can amount to a serious derailment of lifestyle. (A former-Mormon man in our church lost his marriage and struggles with ugly shared-custody battles.) I've also noted a vulnerability to remorse, bitterness (e.g. discovering parents were misleading or withholding information, Etc.) Try to be sensitive to these issues. I mean, don't succumb to competitive gloating; tit for tat; or other temptations to "win" the argument. Compassion-plus is key....if it comes to it, allow them to save face; assure them that the lie they've been under is "not their fault" -- especially, if they were raised from childhood in it. Sorting out the new life will be messy. Offer support, counsel and more compassion.

I've inadvertantly discovered that Christian-cultists are subjected to Christian "bigotry" by real Christians (!) time and again. (Heartbreaking)

When the cultists' world begins to crack apart, be there for them, in Christ's mercy.

Apologetics is NOT about winning the debate. It's about glorifying God by our demeanor and actions, teaching the Truth, making disciples (learners) of Christ.



Robin

[Edited on 9-14-2005 by Robin]


----------

