Questions 41-50

41. Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus says, "... ALL [other] things have been
created through him and FOR HIM". If Jesus were Michael the Archangel
at the time of creation, would an angel have created all things for himself?
Isa 43:7 says God created "everyone ... for my OWN glory ..." If the NWT is
the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible, why does it alter
the written word of God by adding the word “[other]” even though it does
not appear in the original Greek? See Gr-Engl Interlinear. How would this
verse read if the word “[other]” had not been added? What does the word
“all” mean to you?

Again, Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a reading comprehension

problem. We understand what words like "all" mean.

The context of the extracted verse plainly indicates that Jesus is himself a
creation of God. Colossians 1:15-16 read: "He is the image of the
invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him
all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the
things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are
thrones or lordships or governments or authorities."

Since Jesus is in the image of God, the same as Adam was initially, it is
obvious that Jesus is not the Creator. It is, in fact, ludicrous to suppose
that Paul was teaching Christians that God is an image of himself. Yet,
that is exactly the sort of nonsense that Trinitarians would have us
believe. Too, Trinity defenders have tried to peddle the ridiculous notion
that "firstborn" doesn't mean the firstborn, but it simply means the most
prominent. If that's the case we will leave the Trinitarian with the burden of
explaining why God would sanction such an awkward way of illustrating
his own undisputed position of superiority.

Anyone acquainted with the mind-wrenching reasonings of Trinitarians

can appreciate why the Watchtower felt the need to inject some clarity into
such frequently distorted passages such as Colossians 1:15.
42. Heb 1:3, in speaking of Christ says, “…and he sustains ALL things by
the word of his power…” What does the word “all” mean to you? How could
Christ “sustain all things” unless he is almighty? Since only God is almighty,
what does this verse say about Christ?

"All" means everything. No doubt all readers understand the meaning of

such simple words. The Bible's simple teaching is that Jehovah is God
and that Jesus is his son. Jehovah created Jesus before all others and
thereafter empowered his firstborn son to create everything else and to
serve as his representative and spokesmen. When Jesus was on the
earth he said that his Father had given him all things. What does the word
"given" mean to you? If Christ was given his power and position by God it
is obvious that Jesus is not God. So, Jesus is in effect almighty by virtue
of the fact that he has total access to Jehovah's power. The distinction is
that Jehovah is almighty by nature, whereas Jesus is what he is because
of Jehovah's generosity.

43. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible,
why does it alter the word of God by adding the word “[others]” in Acts
10:36 when this word does not appear in the Greek? See Gr-Engl
Interlinear. How would this verse read if the word “[others]” had not been
added to it? What does the word “all” mean to you?

Again, most readers have no trouble comprehending what simple words

like "all" mean. The verse in question reads: "At this Peter opened his
mouth and said: "For a certainty I perceive that God is not
partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works
righteousness is acceptable to him. He sent out the word to the sons
of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus
Christ: this One is Lord of all [others]."

Actually, though, the apostle Paul discussed what the word "all" means as
it relates to Jesus' dominion. The questioner may be startled to know that
"all" does not always mean everything and everyone. At 1 Corinthians
15:27-28, the inspired apostle wrote: "For God "subjected all things
under his feet." But when he says that 'all things have been
subjected,' it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who
subjected all things to him. But when all things will have been
subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to
the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things
to everyone."

Paul reveals that the Father, Jehovah God, has indeed subjected all
things to the rule of his son, Jesus. There is, however, one exception.
Paul even noted that the exception is evident. God himself is the
exception. What does the word "exception" mean to you?

44. Does Prov 4:18 really justify an organization replacing doctrines and
failed prophecies with new doctrines and prophecies, or does it simply
contrast the benefit to the "righteous" of obeying a wise father (Prov 4:10-
19)? A false teaching can be called a "false word" and Prov 13:5 says, "A
false word is what the righteous hates..." When the WTS changes a teaching
to something that is totally different or even the exact opposite of a previous
teaching, is it like a light that is “getting brighter and brighter” or more like
having one false light (word) completely turned off and a totally different
light turned on? Do you think the WTS would be critical of any other
religious organization that changed its teachings as many times on as many
different issues over the last 100 years as the WTS has? In addition, Jude 3
says, “…to put up a hard fight for the faith that was ONCE FOR ALL
TIME DELIVERED to the holy ones.” Since the faith was established and
“once for all time delivered” to the first century Christians, and since the
Bible doesn’t change and God doesn’t lie or change his mind (Num 23:19, Ps
89:34, Heb 6:18), why the need for constant “new light” and ever changing
teachings of the WTS, many of which directly contradict former WTS
teachings?

We are critical of other religions for not changing erroneous doctrines. The
problem is that we are two thousand years removed from the time of
Christ and the apostles. In the intervening centuries, the truth has been
buried under a virtual mountain of religious lies. The early Bible Students,
as Jehovah's Witnesses were originally called, set out on a course to
discover and uncover the truth and overturn the lofty things that
churchianity has raised up against Bible truth. Overturning the babylonish
doctrines of the trinity, the immortal soul and hellfire was the easy part.
Unraveling prophecy is still a work in progress. There are many changes
yet to be made, but Jesus has assured us that the spirit of the truth will
eventually guide us into all the truth. At that point there will be no need for
any new light of any sort.

45. According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary, the Greek word “theotes”

(Strong’s # 2320) used only once in the Bible in Col 2:9, is translated as “the
state of being God, Godhead”. If the NWT is the most accurate word for
word translation of the Bible, why does it mistranslate this Greek word
“theotes” as “divine quality” in Col 2:9, instead of “Godhead”?

The NWT does not differ substantially from other translations. Here is the
NWT rendition of Colossians 2:9-10: "because it is in him that all the
fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so you are
possessed of fullness by means of him."

Here is the popular NIV rendering: "For in Him all the fullness of Deity
dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete."

Naturally, the Trinitarian is disposed to jump to the unthinking conclusion

that Jesus is God because he is filled with the same divine quality which
God also possesses. But, the verse also says that Christians are filled or
made complete by Christ. Using the same illogic, Trinitarians would have
to suppose that anointed Christians are also God, since they are also
filled with the same quality—or person, depending on how literal you wish
to take the expression.

It should be obvious, though, to discerning readers anyway, that the verse

is merely saying that Jehovah lived vicariously through Christ, in that
Christ completely reflected God's personality and qualities. That is in
harmony with many other verses that describe Jesus as being made in
God's image and being his exact representation and reflection.

46. In the WTS book You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth states on
page 147, “…Bible evidence shows that in the year 1914 C.E. God’s time
arrived for Christ to return and begin ruling.” It also states “In the same
way, Christ’s return does not mean that he literally comes back to this earth.
Rather, it means that he takes Kingdom power toward this earth and turns
his attention to it.” This event is described in Zechariah 14:4, which states,
"And HIS FEET WILL ACTUALLY STAND in that day upon the
mountain of the olive trees which is in front of Jerusalem on the east…" If
Jesus has no body and if he will not literally come back to earth, as only the
WTS teaches, how do you explain this verse? What does the phrase “his feet
will actually stand” mean to you? In addition, Zech 14:3 says that it is
Jehovah’s feet that will stand upon the mountain of the olive trees. Since
Jesus is the one who is coming, how can this be unless Jesus and Jehovah are
one and the same? Similarly, if Christ will not have a visible return to earth,
but returned invisibly in 1914, then how was he seen by "ALL the tribes of
the earth" (Mt 24:30), and by "EVERY eye" (Rev 1:7) when he returned?
What do the words “all” and “every” mean to you? How can Christ
"APPEAR" a second time (Heb 9:28) if he will not have a visible “return” to
earth?
An insurmountable difficulty facing those who try to interpret apocalyptic
prophecy literally is that the Bible very simply says that no man has ever
seen God. Not only that, Jehovah told Moses that no man may see God
and live. It is simply out of the realm of possibility that mere humans can
ever have an up-close-and-personal encounter with God. We cannot even
glance directly at the sun for more than a few seconds without doing
permanent damage to our eyes. How do you suppose we shall look upon
the Creator of billions upon billions of suns without instantly vaporizing?

Jehovah made us with the intention of our having a spiritual relationship

with him. In order for us to be able to relate to him, God has revealed
himself in human terms. Jehovah likens himself to humans
anthropomorphically. Thus, we read in Genesis that Jehovah strolled
about in the Garden of Eden about the breezy part of the day. Since we
already know that Adam could not literally see God and survive, it is
evident that the expression is intended to help us appreciate the intimate
spiritual communion that Adam had with God before he rebelled. In that
same sense, then, we may be sure that Jehovah is not literally coming
down to stand upon the Mount of Olives.

47. According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary, the Greek word “klao”

(Strong’s # 2806) means “to break; used in the NT of the breaking of bread
or communion” and the Greek word “artos” (Strong’s # 740) means “food
made with flour mixed with water and baked” or “bread”. Jesus himself
used these same words “”klao” and “artos” in Lk 22:19 at the Last Supper
and Paul also uses these words in 1Cor 11:23-24. In these verses, the NWT
translates these words accurately as “broke” and “loaf”. If the NWT is the
most accurate word for word translation of the Bible, why then does it
translate the Greek phrase “klao artos” of Acts 2:46 and Acts 20:7, as “took
their meals” and “have a meal”, instead of the much more accurate “break
bread”? See Gr-Engl Interlinear. If the NWT is the most accurate word for
word translation of the Bible, what is the reason for the inconsistency of the
translation of these words between Lk 22:19 and Acts 2:46, 20:7? In Acts
2:46, how often did the early Christians meet to break bread?

Translators do not merely convert words into other words. They should
seek to convey thoughts and concepts, as they were originally
understood. As for the verse in question: Bread was the staple for ancient
peoples. Because of that, it came to represent all food in some instances.
For example, when Jesus taught his disciples to pray the model prayer,
he told them to pray to his Father asking for Jehovah to supply them their
daily bread. Are we to understand Jesus' words to mean that we should
subsist entirely on literal bread or that the only food God will supply us
with is bread?
It should be evident to discerning persons that taking bread or breaking
bread together simply represents sharing meals together. The New Living
Translation (NLT) renders Acts 2:46 as: "They worshiped together at
the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord's Supper, and
shared their meals with great joy and generosity."

48. Acts 1:11 says, “This Jesus who was received up from the you (apostles)
into the sky will come thus IN THE SAME MANNER as you have beheld
him going into the sky.” What does the phrase “in the same manner” mean
to you? Did Jesus literally, physically, and in plain view ascend to heaven
(see Acts 1:9)? What does the phrase “while they were looking on, he was
lifted up” in Acts 1:9 mean to you? If Jesus physically and in plain view
ascended to heaven, then how can Jesus have an “invisible” return to earth if
his return will be “in the same manner” as his ascension?

A sacred secret as enigmatic and profound as the nature of Christ's return

can never be understood by those who take a one-dimensional, this-
verse-explains-it-all, approach to interpretation. Rather, one-verse
doctrines are characteristic of those who are bent on deception.

The answer to your question is that Jesus did not physically ascend into
heaven in the first place, and so, therefore, will not return in that manner.
We may be assured that Jesus will never become human again based
upon Jesus' comments to Nicodemus, in the 3rd chapter of John, where he
explained that "what is flesh is flesh and what is spirit is spirit." That
means that those who are born again, as Christ was, leave off their
human flesh and become spirits. Paul also wrote at 2 Corinthians 5:16,
saying in the now awkward phraseology of the King James: "Wherefore
henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have
known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no
more." If anointed Christians will never again know Christ according to
the flesh, then that rules out the notion that Jesus will be returning in the
flesh—as many wrongly assume.

So, what did the angels mean when they said that Jesus would return in
the same manner? Well, what was the manner of his departure? Carefully
consider the instance that led up to the angelic proclamation at Acts 1:9-
11, which reads: And after he had said these things, while they were
looking on, he was lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their
vision. And as they were gazing into the sky while he was on his
way, also, look! two men in white garments stood alongside them,
and they said: "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the
sky? This Jesus who was received up from you into the sky will
come thus in the same manner as you have beheld him going into
the sky."

Bible students ought to take note of the fact that Jesus had already
departed from their view at the time the angels spoke to the disciples. The
disciples were in fact standing there, no doubt awestruck at the spectacle
of Christ's ascension, even long after Jesus had disappeared into a cloud.
At that moment the angels questioned why they were still peering into the
sky, as if they were hoping to get another glimpse of Jesus. Since Jesus
was not visible at the time the angels spoke, their saying that Jesus would
return in the same manner would mean that gazing into the sky for
Christ's return would be as futile as the vigil the apostles and other
disciples were holding at the moment the angels intervened. In other
words, Christ was invisible at the point the angels said that he would
return in the same manner.

The fact that Christ was caught up in a cloud harmonizes with the
prophecy of Daniel 7:13, which reads in the NIV as follows: "In my vision
at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,
coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of
Days and was led into his presence."

The vision in Daniel depicts the Son of man coming with the clouds of
heaven and approaching Jehovah God in his residence in heaven. Ought
we to suppose that Jehovah's heaven has literal precipitous rain clouds
floating about? Of course not. The Watchtower has insightfully pointed out
many times that clouds are really a symbol denoting invisibility—as is
obvious in that text. For instance, clouds can literally obscure the sun,
moon and stars. And, so, if the Son of man is coming on the clouds of
heaven, rather than imparting the idea that Christ is coming back
physically, discerning students of God's Word recognize that the
prophecies teach us just the opposite—that Jesus' return will be invisible.

49. According to Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary, the Hebrew word “ruwach”

(Strong’s # 07307) used in Gen 1:2 means “spirit”. If the NWT is the most
accurate word for word translation of the Bible, why does it mistranslate this
word as “active force”? Similarly, in 1 John 4:1, the NWT translates the
Greek word “pneuma” as “divine expressions” even though this same Greek
word is translated as “spirit” in 1Jn 3:24, 1Jn 4:2,3, and 6. Why the
inconsistency in the translation of this word? Isn’t John's whole point here
that even though the Spirit's presence in us gives us assurance of God's love,
we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims to be from God, but test them
by the teachings which their prophets espouse, "because many false prophets
have gone out into the world"? Is the NWT obscuring this point in order to
avoid the implication that God’s "spirit" is a person rather than a force (just
as the demonic "spirits" are personal entities and not impersonal forces). In
addition, in 1Tim 4:1, the NWT translates the simple Greek word “pneuma”
as “inspired utterance”, instead of “spirit”. What is the reason for this
inconsistency in translation of the word “pneuma”? Is it because a
straightforward “the spirit says” would too obviously imply the personality
of the Holy Spirit?

The questioner supposes that words do not have multiple meanings or

that there are not subtle nuances to certain words. In this he is very much
mistaken. According to Jason BeDuhn, in his Truth in Translation, the
problem is that modern translators have erroneously consolidated many
biblical references to the spirit into the simplistic concept of the holy spirit.

Actually, the Hebrew word "ruach" comes from a root word that means to
breathe. It also can mean wind or the vital force that initiates breathing.
Depending on the context, oftentimes ruach is translated as wind. The
Greek equivalent is "pneuma," which is where English words like
pneumatic and pneumonia come from—of course, also having to do with
air or breathing air. Interestingly, many translations render pneuma as
winds instead of spirits at Hebrews 1:7. (In speaking of the angels he
says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.") NIV

So the original languages used those terms to simply indicate that spirit is
an invisible force, much like breath or wind. The term "active force" more
literally translates the flavor of the Hebrew and Greek words at Genesis
1:2.

As far as 1 John 4:1, the NWT reads: "Beloved ones, do not believe
every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see
whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have
gone forth into the world." Translators of the Bible recognize that the
same word may have different meanings depending on its usage. That's
why the notion of a word-for-word literal translation is misleading. It is true
that the word generally translated as "spirit" is used in this text. However,
translating the Bible demands that translators make the original thought
available to the reader—not merely the corresponding word in another
language. Hence, in that context the Hebrew word generally translated as
spirit carries the thought of being breathed upon by a spirit in the sense of
being inspired. The English word "inspiration," similar to the word
"respiration," carries the connotation of the original language, in that the
one inspired acknowledges being touched or influenced by an outside
source. In the Bible inspiration literally means that God breathed upon the
one inspired. Revelation indicates that the demons can also breathe upon
men and inspire them to tell lies. So, that is the sense of 1 John 4:1:
Inspired expressions are the end result of the spirit breathing upon those
individuals.

The New Living Bible (NLB) similarly expresses John 4:1, saying: "Dear
friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit.
You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God.
For there are many false prophets in the world." In the original there
was no word that would correspond with the English word "speak,"
however, the translators of the NLB recognized that in order to impart to
the reader the real sense of the original expression, it was necessary to
indicate that the verse was not referring to the spirits themselves, but
rather to the utterances the spirits inspired.

50. To what was Jesus referring to by the term "this temple" in Jn 2:18-19?
In Jn 2:21 John explicitly states that when Jesus used the term "this
temple", he was referring to his body. If the WTS teaching that Jesus' body
was destroyed after his death is correct, then how do you explain these
verses?

Jesus was speaking in spiritual terms that the Jews and even his own
apostles could not at first understand. Most people think of a temple in
terms of a physical structure where some type of formal worship or
sacrifice is carried out. In Jesus' day the temple of God was the stone-
and-mortar edifice located in Jerusalem. Jesus originally spoke those
words to the Jews to give them pause to reconsider how God expected to
be worshipped from that point on. Jesus foretold that the Jewish temple
was going to be razed to the ground, with not a stone left upon a stone.
The Christian congregation was going to replace the Jewish nation as
God's organization. But, instead of having a physical temple, Christ and
his anointed followers would constitute a spiritual temple for God to inhabit
by spirit, and Jesus, as the head of that organization, is called the chief
cornerstone of the "building." That's why Jesus compared himself to the
Jewish temple.

Furthermore, Jesus' fleshly body was sacrificed to God, as if on a temple

altar. After his resurrection Jesus became God's high priest, ministering
on the basis of his own sacrifice. That is why Jesus referred to the temple
of his body. Here are a few relevant verses that indicate the spiritual
nature of God's temple.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17: "Do you not know that you people are God's
temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys
the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is
holy, which temple you people are."

1 Corinthians 6:19: "What! Do you not know that the body of you
people is the temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have
from God?"

2 Corinthians 6:16: "For we are a temple of a living God; just as God

said: "I shall reside among them and walk among them, and I shall
be their God, and they will be my people."
Ephesians 2:20-22: "While Christ Jesus himself is the foundation
cornerstone. In union with him the whole building, being
harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for
Jehovah. In union with him you, too, are being built up together into
a place for God to inhabit by spirit."