Questions 31-40

31. In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word "[other]" even though it doesn't
appear in the original Greek. See Gr-Engl Interlinear. Why does the WTS
alter scripture by adding the word “[other]” to this verse? Is the word
"Jehovah" a name? See Exo 6:3, Ps 83:18, and Isa 42:8. How would the
verse read if the word "other" had not been inserted? What does scripture
say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6. If Christians are
persecuted for the sake of Jehovah's name, why did Christ tell the first
Christians that they would be persecuted for the sake of his (Jesus') name,
instead of Jehovah's (Mt 24:9, Mk 13:13, Lk 21:12,17, Jn 15:21, and Acts
9:16)? If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say,
"Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another
name (Jesus Christ vs 10) under heaven that has been given among men by
which we must get saved"? If the teachings of the WTS are correct, would
this not have been the logical place for God to have used the name "YHWH"
or "Jehovah"?

The NWT has not altered the Scripture. Every translation inserts words as
they see fit to make sense of the text. To imply that the NWT is guilty of
something sinister is simply not honest. But, rather than try and make
sense of this maze of questions, the reader will no doubt be better served
by simply reasoning on the text in question. Philippians 2:9 reads: "For
this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and
kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, so that in
the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and
those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should
openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the
Father."

The context of Philippians reveals Jesus to be a humble and willing

servant of God, who willingly forsook his privileged place in heaven and
came to the earth and died a horrible death on a torture stake. That's why
Paul said "for this very reason also God exalted him." It does not matter
which translation a person chooses to read, the truth is still obvious to
those who are not bent on deception: God exalted Christ and gave him an
honored name above all others. What does the word "gave" mean to you?
It means that God granted Jesus the most honored place in the universe
as a reward for his faithfulness. That is the simple truth. Christ Jesus did
not exalt his own name. Jehovah did. Anything that distorts that precious
truth is antichristian and from the Devil.
32. The NWT translates Mt 25:46 as, “And these will depart into everlasting
cutting-off…”. The Greek word that is translated as “cutting-off” is
“kolasis” (Strong # 2851). According to Strong’s Greek dictionary, this word
can only mean “correction, punishment, or penalty”, but no reference is
made to “cutting-off”. If the word “kolasis” was translated correctly as
“correction, punishment, or penalty”, as it should be according to Strong’s
Greek Dictionary, how would this verse read?

Regardless of the word used, Matthew 25:46 contrasts eternal life and
eternal punishment. The NIV reads: "Then they will go away to eternal
punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." If those punished are
tortured in hell's inferno, as you no doubt suppose, then they would also
have to live eternally in order to endure everlasting torture. However,
eternal life is not our birthright. It is a gift of God. The eternal punishment
is everlasting death—or being permanently cut off from life.

Elsewhere the Scriptures make it plain the final judgment imposed upon
the symbolic goats of Christ's illustration is everlasting destruction—not
everlasting torment in hell. For example, 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10 reads in
the NIV: "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut
out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power
on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be
marveled at among all those who have believed."

What does the word "destruction" mean to you?

33. According to scripture, Jesus is “the first and the last” (Rev 1:17-18), the
“first and the last” is “the Alpha and Omega” (Rev 22:13), and “the Alpha
and the Omega” is God (Rev 1:8). In other words, Jesus = “the first and the
last” = “the Alpha and the Omega” = God. How can this be if Jesus is not
God?

Jehovah and Jesus share titles, although there are subtle differences in
the offices they each occupy. Alpha and Omega, the Greek equivalent to
saying A-to-Z in English, is a descriptive title that Jehovah and Jesus may
share, but for different reasons. Jehovah is the ultimate First and Last, in
that he is the only person in existence that had no beginning. And, he
alone innately possesses immortality and life in himself. No one gave
Jehovah life, but he gives life to all others, including his firstborn and only-
begotten Son.

As the firstborn Son of all Creation, Jesus is unique among all of God's
sons, in that he was the first and only creature directly created by
Jehovah. All [others] were created through the Son. That is why, in fact,
Jesus is called the only-begotten Son of God. Jesus is also the first
creature raised from the dead to immortality. That's why the Bible calls
him the "firstborn from the dead." At Colossians 1:18, Paul said of Christ:
"He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might
become the one who is first in all things." The next verse goes on to
show that it pleased God to make his son first in all things.

Jesus is "last" in the sense that he will never be surpassed in glory by any
fellow creature. He will always be the closest to God.

34. Since the WTS prohibits the use of blood transfusions, why does it permit
the infusion of albumin, clotting factors, and gamma globulins, all of which
are components of human blood and are derived from human blood? Since
Acts 15:29 clearly refers to the old Jewish law of not EATING blood (Gen
9:4, Lev 3:17, Deut 12:16), and since the WTS has changed its teachings on
other major health related issues like vaccinations, organ transplantations,
and its opposition to tonsillectomies (Golden Age, 4/7/26, pg 438), etc. and
simply calls these changes "New Light", how can you be sure they won't
some day change their teachings on blood transfusions and refer to that
change as "New Light" also?

Jehovah's Witnesses know what the Bible teaches on that topic and each
of us that are spiritually mature know that we will eventually stand before
Jehovah in judgment. (see www.watchtower.org on main topic BLOOD)

35. 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 words “itself” and
“[true]” in Eccl 12:7 when these words don’t exist in the Hebrew? How
would this verse read without the addition of these words? What does
scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6. If what the
WTS teaches about the spirit of man is correct, then how can the “spirit” of
a man return to God after the body dies and returns to the earth?

The NWT has not altered the Word of God. The bracketed word [itself] is
innocuous and changes nothing. As for the expression [true] God: The
New World Translation explains in its appendix that there are several
hundred places in Scripture where the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is
preceded by the definite article. When that occurs in reference to
Jehovah, the NWT always uses the expression "[true] God" in order to
make the distinction. Literally the expression should say "the God," but
that is an awkward expression in English. So, the translators used a word
that distinguishes the expression "the God" from the ordinary use of
Elohim without the definite article. As for the spirit returning to the true
God who gave it, that simply means that the dead person's future life's
prospects rest with God. In the NIV, Ecclesiastes 12:7 reads: "and the
dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God
who gave it." The CEV reads: "So our bodies return to the earth, and
the life-giving breath returns to God"

The Message Bible reads: "The body is put back in the same ground it
came from. The spirit returns to God, who first breathed it."

The NWT reads: "The dust returns to the earth, just as it happened to
be and the spirit itself returns to the [true] God who gave it."

As any reader can see, there is no alteration of the text. There is merely a
variation in the translations. The textual variations are trivial and do not
alter the meaning. The Bible is simply saying that at death we dissolve
into dust and the animating spirit returns to God.

36. 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.” In 1Cor 11:26, Paul writes, "For as often as you eat this
loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, UNTIL
HE ARRIVES." If Christ “arrived” in 1914, why do Jehovah's Witnesses
continue to partake of the bread and wine? Shouldn't they have stopped in
1914?

Not necessarily. Whether Jesus' parousia began in 1914 or will begin at

some future time, the expression "until he arrives," as it relates to the
legitimate partakers of the bread and wine, has to do with Jesus arriving
to receive his bride-like congregation to himself. Jesus said that the final
gathering of his chosen ones will occur during his presence, during a time
of unprecedented global tribulation. Obviously, when the last surviving
member of the bride of Christ has died, and the marriage of the Lamb
takes place in heaven, then there will be no more ceremonial eating of the
emblems of Christ's death. He will have fully arrived at that time.

37. In Acts 2:26-27, Peter, referring to the time the dead Jesus spent in the
tomb, quotes David referring to Christ, “On this account my heart became
cheerful and my tongue greatly rejoiced. Moreover, even MY FLESH WILL
RESIDE IN HOPE, because you will not leave my soul in Hades…” If Jesus’
body was destroyed while he was in the tomb, why does he say that his “flesh
will reside in hope”? For what “hope” was his “flesh” residing? If there is no
conscious awareness after death, how could he “hope”, in the first place?

Peter was quoting from the 16th Psalm. In that Psalm, David was
expressing his confidence in the resurrection. David said that while he
was alive, "my own flesh will reside in security." David was not saying
that his flesh resided in security after his death. We can rightly assume
that David's corpse rotted in the grave. Peter indicated as much when he
went on to say in the 29th verse: "Men, brothers, it is allowable to
speak with freeness of speech to you concerning the family head
David, that he both deceased and was buried and his tomb is among
us to this day." David's flesh resided in security while he was alive,
because of the hope of the resurrection.

As it applies to Jesus, Jesus also had the hope of a resurrection. He was

secure in the knowledge that Jehovah would resurrect him and not leave
him to rot in the grave. That is why he was willing to die in the first place,
because he had hope. Hebrews 12:2 says the same thing: "For the joy
that was set before him he endured a torture stake, despising
shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

38. In the NWT, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" ( ) is used in
reference to God, it is translated as "worship" (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4,
Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in reference to Jesus, it is
translated as "obeisance" (Mt 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.),
even though it is the same word in the Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear).
Especially compare the Greek word "proskunhsan" used with reference to
God in Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and the same exact word used with
reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17. What is the reason for this
inconsistency in translation? If the NWT was consistent in translating
"proskuneo" as "worship", how would the verses above referring to Christ
read?
The questioner supposes that words do not have variations in meaning
depending on the context of their usage. However, according to Strong's
lexicon "proskuneo" has several nuances in meaning, and is used to
denote doing an act of respect before a human ruler or dignitary. It is not
always used to denote what we call an act of worship. The NWT is fully
justified in making a distinction between the oriental custom of doing
obeisance before a human superior and doing an act of worship before
God.

The question discerning persons ought to ask is this: If the apostles'

bowing before Jesus indicates that they thought Jesus was God, who was
Jesus bowing to when he prostrated himself in the Garden of
Gethsemane? Should we suppose that one third of the trinity worships the
other 66% of the godhead?

39. Jesus Christ is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 9:6 ("For there has
been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us... And his name will
be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, and Eternal Father...").
Jehovah God is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 10:20-21. How can this
be if there is only ONE God? Jesus is also called the “Eternal Father” in Isa
9:6. Since only God is eternal, that is, has no beginning and no end, how can
this be if Christ is not God but was “created” by God? If “Mighty God” and
“Eternal Father” are only titles given to Christ, why would he be given any
“title” in scripture that did not accurately apply to him?

The verse in question reads from the NIV: "For to us a child is born, to
us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And
he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting
Father, Prince of Peace."

Careful readers will note that the prophecy in Isaiah says that the Messiah
"will be called" by such names as Mighty God, Eternal Father. If that were
in reference to Jehovah, he would have already been known as such
when the prophecy was written. Secondly, Trinitarians are faced with
explaining the obvious absurdity that the Son of God is also his own
Father. That should prove to be an insurmountable obstacle seeing that
even the most ardent Trinitarian will confess that there is a distinction
between the Father and the Son of their supposed triune godhead.
Thirdly, a prince is a son of a king. Jehovah is the King, not a prince.

Jesus is a Mighty God by virtue of the fact that Jehovah appoints him to
that high office. That is in fact what the prophecy is foretelling, namely that
the Messiah will inherit the throne of David and rule God's kingdom in
place of God. Jesus becomes the Eternal Father of mankind by virtue of
the fact that he brings the dead back to life and grants them everlasting
life. The Bible explains how our original father, Adam, brought death upon
the whole race. Jesus is called the Last Adam because he replaces Adam
as mankind's father. He will become our Eternal Father when he
abolishes death and imparts everlasting life to Adam's offspring.

40. Acts 17:31 Paul says, "Because he has set a day in which he purposes to
judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a MAN whom he has
appointed, and he has furnished a guarantee to all men in that he has
resurrected him from the dead". Did Paul believe that the future judge of
the world, Jesus Christ, would be an invisible spirit creature or an immortal
“man”? Similarly, after Jesus’ death, Paul writes in 1Tim 2:5, “For there is
one God, and one mediator between God and men, a MAN, Christ Jesus.”
Did Paul, speaking in the present, believe that Jesus was an invisible spirit
creature or a “man”?

Paul personally knew Christ as an invisible mighty spirit. He never met

Jesus as a man. He also has the unique distinction of being the only
human to have seen Jesus in his glorified state after his ascension. Surely
Paul knows the truth of the matter. When discussing the resurrection of
Christ in the 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians, Paul stated: "After that he
appeared to James, then to all the apostles; but last of all he
appeared also to me as if to one born prematurely."

Why did Paul say that his personal encounter with Jesus on the road to
Damascus was like being born prematurely? The reason is because all
the others who saw Christ after his resurrection saw Jesus as he
appeared in some human form. Paul, however, saw Jesus as he presently
is, in his glorious spirit state. It was like Paul was born premature in that
the others of the 144,000 will not be privileged to see Jesus in spirit until
they are born as spirit sons in heaven. That is why Paul likened the
experience to being born prematurely. However, he referred to Jesus as
a man because, obviously, Jesus once was a man, and it was because of
his faithfulness as a man that God rewarded him by making him a
heavenly king. Put another way, although Jesus is not still a man, his
course as a man was what qualified him to judge mankind, so in that
sense it is appropriate to speak of him as a man.