# Talking to a Jehovah's Witness



## Toasty (May 21, 2016)

I was talking with a Jehovah's Witness recently and I told him that the word "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 means preeminent or supreme and that the word "begotten" in John 3:16 means unique or one-of-a-kind. I also told him that Jesus is called the Son of God because He has the same nature as God. He told me that I was redefining the words "firstborn", "begotten", and "Son." He thought I was just making up those definitions. The next time I talk with a Jehovah's Witness, do you think it would be a good idea to show him a Greek lexicon that has those definitions? 

He also told me that the Bible translation that I'm using (NASB) is a bad one. Should I learn some Greek and show him how the NWT is a bad translation when compared with the Greek NT?


----------



## timfost (May 22, 2016)

Col. 1 is a favorite text for the JWs. However, you don't have to look further than the text itself to see the problem. I've bolded the word addition in the NWT.



> 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all *other* things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible. (NWT)





> 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. (NKJV)



*1.* By inserting the word "other," they maintain that Christ preexited the _other_ parts of creation, but He Himself was created, thus denying His co-existence with the Father (and Spirit) from eternity. However, the text reads exactly the opposite. _All_ things were created by and through Him (16b, also see John 1:3, which they notoriously butcher as well). If _everything_ was created by Him as the text teaches, this would _by necessity_ exclude Himself, for something nonexistent cannot create itself.

*2.* The use of "firstborn" has more to do with His preeminence (v. 18) than His existence (think primogeniture). 

*3.* Therefore, if the Son is begotten of the Father, it is from eternity. If from eternity, there was never the existence of the Father without the Son.

*Conclusion*: You don't need to be proficient in Greek to direct a JW to Christ, the eternal Son of God. Rather, we can invite them to believe in Jesus unto their salvation! In Scripture, especially the OT, a name describes one's nature. JWs love to talk about getting Jehovah's name _right_, yet understand nothing of His nature-- that He is _Three Persons in one God_.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 22, 2016)

Whenever I talk w/ JW's, I always use the redirect; I never argue on their grounds as their approach is determined along the lines of error. I begin with the sovereignty of God and then directly towards the doctrine of election, ultimately destroying their Arminian presupposition.


----------



## Cymro (May 22, 2016)

To be an eternal Father necessitates an eternal Son.


----------



## KeithW (May 22, 2016)

JW's do not accept any publication as authoritative unless it comes from Watchtower. So I doubt they would accept your use of any lexicon. At one time Watchtower published an interlinear translation but I forget the name of it. On one page it had the Greek and English interlinear and on the facing page the NWT. It was easy to compare the two English translations and see the changes.

The advice I have heard on the subject of the deity of Christ is instead of trying to explain words in the NT, where Watchtower has tried "fixing" most of what we would say, is instead to do this. Find places where the NT quotes the OT, where in the OT it can only refer to Jehovah, and in the NT where it is being applied to Jesus.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 22, 2016)

There interlinear is called The Kingdom Interlinear Bible


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 22, 2016)

KeithW said:


> JW's do not accept any publication as authoritative unless it comes from Watchtower. So I doubt they would accept your use of any lexicon.



I use their own bibles to prove the doctrine of election.....I destroy their arguments with their own texts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter (May 22, 2016)

Scott Bushey said:


> KeithW said:
> 
> 
> > JW's do not accept any publication as authoritative unless it comes from Watchtower. So I doubt they would accept your use of any lexicon.
> ...



I have taken a similar approach. I use an ASV. And discuss the doctrines of grace with them. They look at their own Bibles and have no argument with what I showed them. They then want to change the topic


----------



## Toasty (May 22, 2016)

KeithW said:


> JW's do not accept any publication as authoritative unless it comes from Watchtower. So I doubt they would accept your use of any lexicon. At one time Watchtower published an interlinear translation but I forget the name of it. On one page it had the Greek and English interlinear and on the facing page the NWT. It was easy to compare the two English translations and see the changes.
> 
> The advice I have heard on the subject of the deity of Christ is instead of trying to explain words in the NT, where Watchtower has tried "fixing" most of what we would say, is instead to do this. Find places where the NT quotes the OT, where in the OT it can only refer to Jehovah, and in the NT where it is being applied to Jesus.



That is a good approach. Are there examples of that other than Hebrews chapter 1?


----------



## KeithW (May 22, 2016)

Toasty said:


> That is a good approach. Are there examples of that other than Hebrews chapter 1?


I learned about his approach while listening to Dr. James White. Here are two articles. The first is the reasoning behind this approach. The second is a list of verses about Jesus as God.

http://www.equip.org/article/effectively-sharing-the-deity-of-Christ-with-jehovahs-witnesses/

http://confessingbaptist.com/Jesus-...es-whites-the-forgotten-trinity-droakley1689/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (May 23, 2016)

Scott Bushey said:


> I begin with the sovereignty of God and then directly towards the doctrine of election, ultimately destroying their Arminian presupposition.



I used to do this as well, but have become convinced that these people need to be evangelized. Using the NT as a guide, wouldn't it be better to tell them about Jesus (as God) and call them to faith and repentance? As I understand it, predestination is primarily a doctrine for believers, not unbelievers.

The 39 Articles are helpful in this regard:



> As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, *is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons*, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: *So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall*, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. (From XVII)


----------



## Toasty (May 23, 2016)

KeithW said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > That is a good approach. Are there examples of that other than Hebrews chapter 1?
> ...



Those are great links. Thank you.


----------



## Presbuteros (May 23, 2016)

Psalm 89:27 shows that David (youngest of his syblings) is called the firstborn.


----------



## David_A_Reed (May 24, 2016)

Recall, of course, that JWs look at the Bible through colored glasses -- eyeglasses tinted to color the meaning of the Bible’s texts to mean something else, not what they actually say.
That can be seen in a conversation I actually had with a Jehovah’s Witness woman about the Watchtower teaching that only 144,000 go to heaven, and that the “great crowd” (the remaining JWs) will live forever on earth.

The conversation went like this: I got her to open her own Bible to Revelation 19:1. In the King James Version it refers to “a great voice of much people in heaven.” And in her Jehovah’s Witness _New World Translation_ it said, “a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven.”

I had her read it out loud in her own Bible, and when she read out loud the words “great crowd in heaven” I asked her, 
“So, where is the great crowd?”

She answered, “On earth.”

So, I said, “Didn’t you just read ‘great crowd in heaven’ in your Bible?”

She replied, “Yes, I see that it says ‘great crowd in heaven’ but we have men in Brooklyn, New York, who can prove that the great crowd is on earth.”

Now, most Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t admit to you – like she did – that they blindly follow their leaders, even when they interpret the Bible to mean the opposite of what it says. But that is the way they think.

You can show them what the Bible says, but they see the verse through Watchtower colored glasses.

And that is why you must destroy their blind trust in those leaders FIRST, before you can get very far with them using the Bible.

And in order to do that, you need to know about the history of their organization -- so that you can expose their leadership as the frauds and impostors that they really are.

I don't mean to discount the importance of Scripture. (I myself was a JW for 13 years, and a JW elder for 8 years, when reading the Bible itself drew me to Jesus, and He led me out of the Watchtower.) But, keep the above in mind if back-and-forth discussions with JWs seem like Bible ping-pong, that leaves both sides exhausted but doesn't seem to get anywhere.

The JWs' chief doctrine is that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is God's representative on earth, and all their other doctrines hang on that one, because they accept the Society's interpretation as the highest authority.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## David_A_Reed (May 25, 2016)

Toasty said:


> KeithW said:
> 
> 
> > JW's do not accept any publication as authoritative unless it comes from Watchtower. So I doubt they would accept your use of any lexicon. At one time Watchtower published an interlinear translation but I forget the name of it. On one page it had the Greek and English interlinear and on the facing page the NWT. It was easy to compare the two English translations and see the changes.
> ...


Jehovah's Witnesses admit that “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6 refers to Jesus (even though they consider Jesus to be the first angel God created). But they say that Jesus is not “Almighty God”—a term they reserve for the Father alone.

However, the Bible does not make this distinction. In fact, the Scriptures show that the Father is also called “mighty,” and that Jesus is also almighty.

Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is “upholding all things by the word of his power.” Some translations render this as “he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” (ESV) Wouldn’t he have to be almighty to do that?

Matthew 28:18 says Jesus has “all power . . . in heaven and earth.” (KJV) Having “all power” is what Almighty means.

But is the Almighty God, the One JWs call Jehovah, also called “mighty”? Yes, and JWs can be shown it in their own Bible at Jeremiah 32:18, where the New World Translation speaks of “the true God, the great One, the *mighty* One, Jehovah of armies being his name.” (emphasis added)

Now ask the JW you are speaking with to turn over a page or two from Isaiah 9:6 in his trusted New World Translation, and read Isaiah 10:20-21: “. . . those remaining over of Israel . . . will certainly support themselves upon Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, in trueness. A mere remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to *the Mighty God*.”

So, even the JWs’ own Bible uses the same title—“Mighty God”—of the Son in Isaiah 9:6 and of Jehovah the God of Israel in Isaiah 10:20-21.

--quoted from the _Doorstep Bible Answering Mormons & Jehovah's Witnesses_ footnote on Isaiah 9:6


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 25, 2016)

Personally, I've never had a Jehovah's Witness come back to my house after going over John chapter one in their Bible. First I ask them why they are Arians. They never know how to deal with that. Then, I make them answer the question about "was a God" instead of " was God,"in John 1. I make them commit to their understanding and ask them if they're absolutely sure they're going to stick with that idea? Then I asked them what the Greek construction is and they skip around that a few times but they say that the Greek means was a god instead of was God. And then I ask them if they're sure that they are committed to sticking with that idea. They generally tell me they are. I asked them if they're absolutely sure and they're not going to change their mind. And then I asked them what they do with the other 13 occurrences of that same construction of those same words throughout the rest of the first chapter? They generally tell me they don't know what I mean. But I show them at the same Construction in that first part of John chapter 1 is used describing Jehovah 13 more times in the chapter. So they have one of two choices: 1) Jesus is a God and Jehovah's is a God, or 2) Jesus is God and Jehovah's is God.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## David_A_Reed (Jun 8, 2016)

Although it is necessary, sooner or later, to show JWs the deity of Christ in Scripture -- and Christians feel most confident to talk to JWs about that and the Trinity doctrine -- my personal experience as a former JW elder myself, followed by 35 years of counter-cult ministry, is that the Trinity doctrine is the LAST thing we should discuss with JWs.

And it is usually the LAST thing that a JW will come to accept after leaving the Watchtower and coming into fellowship in a Christian church.

That is because JWs are more heavily indoctrinated on this than on any other point. They are taught that the Trinity is a three-headed false god created by Satan the devil. And there are many Bible verses that their organization twists to make that bogus point.

Because ALL of their doctrines really depend on their chief doctrine -- that the Watchtower Society is God's appointed spokesman on earth -- it is difficult to argue against what 'God's mouthpiece' says. So, that is what must be addressed first, for most JWs. This can be accomplished by showing them evidence of the Society's failed prophecies, nonsensical past teachings, and back-and-forth flip-flops. (See http://answerjw.com/rescue/.)

Then, the best way I have found to approach theology is to ask "Who is Jesus?" The WT Society says he is the first angel Jehovah created. Hebrews chapter 1 refutes that, but it also necessary to address the other Bible passages that are twisted in their minds. (See http://www.DoorstepBible.com/.)

Personally, when I was leaving the Watchtower back in 1981-82, I began to realize that Jesus was MUCH more important than the WT Society made him out to be. Then I grasped that he could not be an angel. Finally, I saw that he must be God. And then the Trinity doctrine began to make sense. But that whole process took several months.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

