Recommended Works Refuting JWs

[Thomas Didymus]

Can someone recommend any exhaustive books that expose JW false teachings? I am looking for works that not only expose the doctrines and failed prophecies, but also look at the history of the organization, etc.

Thanks a bunch.

[Aletheia]

Crisis of Conscience - Raymond Franz (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0914675230/qid=1135350760/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-0548299-3179260?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)

In Search of Christian Freedom - Raymond Franz (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0914675168/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/002-0548299-3179260?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

Apocalypse Delayed - James Penton (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802079733/qid=1135350760/sr=8-6/ref=pd_bbs_6/002-0548299-3179260?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)

[Hitch]

Kingdom of The Cults

[Krusader]

Can someone recommend any exhaustive books that expose JW false teachings? I am looking for works that not only expose the doctrines and failed prophecies, but also look at the history of the organization, etc.

Thanks a bunch.

If you're interested in contacting a good ministry (and I've worked in the apologetics field for many years - and I think it's one of the best), here is a link. They have a lot of good literature available, and they also touch on subjects within the WT that you may not have heard before. Lori MacGregor was raised as a Witness and is now a zealous Christian dedicated to exposing the errors of the WT and other cultic groups:

http://www.macgregorministries.org/

PS: The best way to learn about any cult is to read their own literature - if you can find the old WT books, they are a great source of info.

[Thomas Didymus]

Thanks, guys. I've searched for the titles to find out a little more about them.

BTW, this book search finds and compares prices by title, author, ISBN, or keyword. Pretty handy:

http://www.fetchbook.info/

Crusader, thanks for the advice and the website. It has been helpful.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I'd definitely recommend reading their own literature. It's enough to make you realize just how much they'll stretch things to fit their own definitions.

Btw, anybody ever noticed that their writing in the magazines is on such an elementary level? It makes me feel like I'm in Elementary school reading the Weekly Reader again.

[Gromit45]

Can someone recommend any exhaustive books that expose JW false teachings? I am looking for works that not only expose the doctrines and failed prophecies, but also look at the history of the organization, etc.

Thanks a bunch.

Another book that refutes JWs but also teaches about our faith is James White's The Forgotten Trinity (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=17259&netp_id=135860&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW)

[Aletheia]

Thomas,

On the off-chance that you didn't notice, I just wanted to point out that the titles I listed above are links (to reviews). :smile:

[Thomas Didymus]

Thomas,

On the off-chance that you didn't notice, I just wanted to point out that the titles I listed above are links (to reviews). :smile:

Yes, thank you. One of the things I like about amazon is that they recommend other titles comparable to the one you're looking for in particular.

Thanks again for the links.

[David Ragland]

I'd definitely recommend reading their own literature. It's enough to make you realize just how much they'll stretch things to fit their own definitions.

Btw, anybody ever noticed that their writing in the magazines is on such an elementary level? It makes me feel like I'm in Elementary school reading the Weekly Reader again.

Well, consider who they are trying to reach. If you want to be impressed with literary style and erudition read something besides sales pitches. :lol:

Regards,
david the servant

[David Ragland]

Can someone recommend any exhaustive books that expose JW false teachings? I am looking for works that not only expose the doctrines and failed prophecies, but also look at the history of the organization, etc.

Thanks a bunch.

Here is a link to our Jehovah's Witness page. You will find MUCH info here. :smile:

http://exit3.i-55.com/~devilfoe/jehovah's witnesses.htm (http://exit3.i-55.com/~devilfoe/jehovah's%20witnesses.htm)

Let me know if you need any further assistance.

Regards,
david the servant

[Cal_Minian]

Can someone recommend any exhaustive books that expose JW false teachings? I am looking for works that not only expose the doctrines and failed prophecies, but also look at the history of the organization, etc.

Thanks a bunch.

I know this is the opposite of what you asked for :lol:

But see my sig file for articles on the langage board which show that the most recent and best Greek Lexicon financed by the Lutheran Missouri Synod, BDAG , supports the NWT on the verses which Trinitarians use as proof-texts.

cal, if you want to contribute to a thread we welcome that, but please don't post in a thread for the purpose of advertizing your other threads. That is disruptive.

[NonTrinitarian]

Can someone recommend any exhaustive books that expose JW false teachings? I am looking for works that not only expose the doctrines and failed prophecies, but also look at the history of the organization, etc.

Thanks a bunch.

And if you want to be balanced, I recommend the following:

Jesus-God or the Son of God by Brian Holt
Jehovah's Witnesses Defended by Greg Stafford
The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation by Rolf Furuli
Truth in Translation by Jason Beduhn

The first three are JW's, the last one is not. IF you're truly interested in getting more than a one-sided story.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

The problem with that list, NonTrin, is Greg Stafford's book is out of print. It sold recently on ebay for er, more money than I have. Solution: Greg Stafford's page - www.elihubooks.com (http://www.elihubooks.com) - says the 3rd edition is coming out in March. :yes:

I can't buy Rolf Furuli's book either (I'm in the UK) Same with Holt. So it is really difficult for me to be balanced here! Anyone can read Stafford's arguments online though, at jehovah.to (exegesis section).

I do own Beduhn but really, do you agree with his presuppositions?

P.S. You can read JP Holding's response to Stafford's key arguments here
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jwsandjesus.html

(edit: added response to Stafford, changed smiley)

[NonTrinitarian]

The problem with that list, NonTrin, is Greg Stafford's book is out of print. It sold recently on ebay for er, more money than I have. Solution: Greg Stafford's page - www.elihubooks.com (http://www.elihubooks.com/) - says the 3rd edition is coming out in March. :yes:

I can't buy Rolf Furuli's book either (I'm in the UK) Same with Holt. So it is really difficult for me to be balanced here! Anyone can read Stafford's arguments online though, at jehovah.to (exegesis section).

I do own Beduhn but really, do you agree with his presuppositions?

P.S. You can read JP Holding's response to Stafford's key arguments here
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jwsandjesus.html

(edit: added response to Stafford, changed smiley)

Go to this link.

http://www.goldenagebooks.co.uk/default.asp

They are located in the UK and you can order some of those works from them. Holt's book is sold there because I have their catalog. Not sure about the others. I've read Holding's write up on Stafford. Holding doesn't impress me on many subjects, including this one and his Wisdom article.

As far as BeDuhn, he's not a JW and basically tries to look at it from a purely linguistic (SP?) stance, not a theological stance. I think that will impeede him in some situations but his goal is to show the theological bias in different translations, and there is also theological bias in the NWT, of which he points out. Every translation is biased and should cause all to pause when it comes to asserting a certain translation is correct all the time.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hello NonTrin,

Go to this link.

http://www.goldenagebooks.co.uk/default.asp



Thank you! :thumb: Now then,


I've read Holding's write up on Stafford. Holding doesn't impress me on many subjects, including this one and his Wisdom article.


Please expand on this, why doesn't Holding's article impress you?


As far as BeDuhn, he's not a JW and basically tries to look at it from a purely linguistic (SP?) stance, not a theological stance. I think that will impeede him in some situations but his goal is to show the theological bias in different translations, and there is also theological bias in the NWT, of which he points out. Every translation is biased and should cause all to pause when it comes to asserting a certain translation is correct all the time.

Of course there are biases in every translation, but that wasn't what I was getting at. Take chapter five for example:

Beduhn is not a scholar of Greek (as far as I can tell), he's an expert in Manichaeanism and is an associate professor of religious studies in the humanities department at Northern Arizona university. So my question is, why is he translating Greek?

I also disagree with Beduhn's methodology; merely comparing bible translations while using a single lexicon and a few authorities (only four footnotes) - including Furuli - is not helpful in a work like this. There have been other studies on this section of Philippians since 1988. A method like this is still not without bias. :tongue:

He claims the "two-nature Christology" was "first worked out by Christians at the Council of Chalcedon" [53] - what is Matthew 22:41-46 about?

The conclusion is rather strange; that Paul "chooses to focus on Christ as a human being" - this causes me to go :huh: - that is partly what it's about yes but...huh?

:ahem: So yes, Beduhn's book is certainly interesting but I have reservations about it.

[NonTrinitarian]

Hello NonTrin,
Thank you! :thumb: Now then,
Please expand on this, why doesn't Holding's article impress you?

It's a bunch of hogwash. He talks about going through the "back door" and I see why when I read it.



Of course there are biases in every translation, but that wasn't what I was getting at. Take chapter five for example:

Beduhn is not a scholar of Greek (as far as I can tell), he's an expert in Manichaeanism and is an associate professor of religious studies in the humanities department at Northern Arizona university. So my question is, why is he translating Greek?

To my knowledge and from what I've read in dialogue between him and Trinitarians, he is very familiar with Greek. What makes you think wasn't?

I also disagree with Beduhn's methodology; merely comparing bible translations while using a single lexicon and a few authorities (only four footnotes) - including Furuli - is not helpful in a work like this. There have been other studies on this section of Philippians since 1988. A method like this is still not without bias. :tongue:
This argument builds on your assumption above that he is not familiar with Greek and is only comparing Bibles and relying on what others have said about certain verses. Beduhn knows Greek and speaks as an authority.


He claims the "two-nature Christology" was "first worked out by Christians at the Council of Chalcedon" [53] - what is Matthew 22:41-46 about?
This falls into the interpretation of doctrine, not Greek. You're argument is based on religion, not the language, which is why I think Beduhn has a stronger stance than you. He discusses language, you want to discuss theology. And for the record, Matt 22 doesn't mention anything about two natures. It simply, merely, only highlights Jesus authority over David. He's David's son yet he has been placed over David as his Lord.


:ahem: So yes, Beduhn's book is certainly interesting but I have reservations about it.
I'm not a Debuhn cheerleader and feel no need to try to defend his work. He knows Greek and limits his discussion to language. The ensuing internet debates with him and Trinitarians show Trinitarians have to primarily argue from theology whereas he argues from greek grammar.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Um,
It's a bunch of hogwash. He talks about going through the "back door" and I see why when I read it.


Actually, I was asking why using intertestamental literature is an invalid approach. Calling someone's argument names is not an answer, just like my calling your response "hogwash" is not an answer.

(I think I'm going to have to reread these dialogues he's had...)


This argument builds on your assumption above that he is not familiar with Greek and is only comparing Bibles and relying on what others have said about certain verses. Beduhn knows Greek and speaks as an authority.


I'm afraid you've missed my methodology. If I am familiar with medical textbooks and practices it does not make me a doctor now, does it? :smile: The fact remains he is not a Greek scholar. (as far as I can tell) Also I do not think that limited use of sourcework is a helpful thing when one is presenting new approaches to a problem.


This falls into the interpretation of doctrine, not Greek. You're argument is based on religion, not the language,


No, my point was that the claim was ahistorical. The two-nature view of Christ existed centuries prior to Chalcedon:

Await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible, who suffered for our sake, who endured in all ways for our sake (Ignatius to Polycarp, 3 [Lightfoot])

How did that view arise if not from the gospels due to Wisdom theology as a template? But of course you reject that...

And yes, Matthew 22 does posit a two-nature view: you have David's Lord on one hand and David's son by lineage on the other. ("has been placed over David as his Lord"? Where is that in Psalm 110, please, in the context of David's lifetime?)


limits his discussion to language.


Please explain why a Christological passage such as Philippians 2:6-8 should be limited to language?


The ensuing internet debates with him and Trinitarians show Trinitarians have to primarily argue from theology whereas he argues from greek grammar.

Which Trinitarians are those, please? Beduhn's own conclusion in the discussion with Robert Hommel includes:

As always, it has been a pleasure to engage Robert Hommel in this discussion, which has been carried on at a very high level of information and argument. He certainly has a wide command of much relevant literature, including linguistic theory, despite a certain lack of familiarity specifically with the rules that govern Koine Greek. He obviously makes use of Greek grammars, but applies them in a hit-and-miss fashion to the biblical text (as can be seen in corrections I have made to his examples throughout our exchange). I think some of our more drawn-out exchanges have been due to this problem, although certainly not all. He has taken his stand on several positions that I understand and can appreciate, even when I don't agree.


Source: forananswer.org, Mars Hill exchange Beduhn/Hommel

I don't think I've had an exchange with you before, NonTrinitarian, so I'll excuse your missing the points I made and my methodology:smile:

[NonTrinitarian]

Um,
Actually, I was asking why using intertestamental literature is an invalid approach. Calling someone's argument names is not an answer, just like my calling your response "hogwash" is not an answer.

(I think I'm going to have to reread these dialogues he's had...)
I'm not going to debate Holdings stuff in this thread. God's Word is pretty clear on who Jesus is. Intertestamental literature is not inspired and Holding makes what I believe are huge leaps. It's like saying 'hey, this verse has the word "wisdom" in it. Oh, so does this one. Conclusion, they must be discussing the same thing.' That's all I'm discussing Holding's article.

I'm afraid you've missed my methodology. If I am familiar with medical textbooks and practices it does not make me a doctor now, does it? :smile: The fact remains he is not a Greek scholar. (as far as I can tell) Also I do not think that limited use of sourcework is a helpful thing when one is presenting new approaches to a problem.
eh, the "fact remains" that you have listed no facts. You made assumptions and have not backed them up. From what I see, he is a greek scholar.

No, my point was that the claim was ahistorical. The two-nature view of Christ existed centuries prior to Chalcedon:

Await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible, who suffered for our sake, who endured in all ways for our sake (Ignatius to Polycarp, 3 [Lightfoot])

How did that view arise if not from the gospels due to Wisdom theology as a template? But of course you reject that...
What part of that said Christ has two natures? Bold that part next time so I don't miss it. Older historical data shows Jesus is not God. See the New Testament and the hundreds of verses in it that distinguish Jesus from God. You are dealing with latter history.

And yes, Matthew 22 does posit a two-nature view: you have David's Lord on one hand and David's son by lineage on the other. ("has been placed over David as his Lord"? Where is that in Psalm 110, please, in the context of David's lifetime?)
A little more research on your part will provide many scholars who admit prophecies written by OT persons were often not either 1.) recognized as prophecies by them or 2.) they didn't understand the interpretation of them or their fulfillment.

Besides, if the lowest of the lowest of angels was spoken of in Ps 110, and this angel was going to be given the throne of David, and God transferred the life of this lowly angel to Mary, that same prophecy could be said of that angel. He was David's son because he came from his lineage and he was David's lord because God put him their. Kind of like in verse 1 where the LORD is telling the Lord what to do and that the LORD will tell this Lord when he can go out and rule. (see the first three verses) It's pretty clear which "lord" has more authority. Nope, nothing in there about a two headed Jesus.

Please explain why a Christological passage such as Philippians 2:6-8 should be limited to language?
Show me where I said it should. I simply said Beduhn limits his to such and shows that many verses are translated on belief rather than grammar.


Which Trinitarians are those, please? Beduhn's own conclusion in the discussion with Robert Hommel includes:



Source: forananswer.org, Mars Hill exchange Beduhn/Hommel
I'm thinking of Robert Bowman and Beduhn discussing John 8:58. It is blatantly obvious Bowman hinges his translation on his belief, not grammar.

[Pythagoras]

Holding speaks from both sides of his mouth as with a forked tongue. This is to be expected since the trinity doctrine leaves him with no other choice.

Example:

"More recently I have been referred to a site by a JW named "Heinz" who is conversant in the Wisdom literature -- but regards it as "damaging to Trinitarians" because it shows that "Wisdom was created!" Sirach 24:9 is quoted as, "He created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never cease." But 42:18-21 is not quoted, and that is what makes it clear that while Wisdom (and therefore Jesus) is indeed a "creation" (as Philo says, an effulgence, as light emits from a light bulb) of God, Wisdom is an eternal creation of God and can therefore be spoken of as "created before all things" without any implication that there was a point or time when it did not exist."

The phrase "eternal creation" is nonsensical, akin to saying "square circle", and no amount of double speak will change that.

Otherwise intelligent people forget how to count when it comes to the holy trinity . The same person who says the father is God, the son is God, the holy spirit is God also goes on to conclude , with a straight face and in all seriousness, that there is only One God. Honestly, Trinitarians should either give up the idea that the three "persons" are distinct or drop the notion that there is one God . Can't have it both ways, unfortunately....


best wishes nonetheless,

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Ergh,

I'm not going to debate Holdings stuff in this thread.


You called Holding's work "hogwash" and you won't even answer simple questions why you did so, or why you think it is? Amazing.


God's Word is pretty clear on who Jesus is.


God's Word was not written in a vacuum, and it is best understood in the context of first century Judaism. In this setting, yes, God's Word is definitely clear who Jesus is.


Intertestamental literature is not inspired


No-one is claiming that it is!


and Holding makes what I believe are huge leaps. It's like saying 'hey, this verse has the word "wisdom" in it. Oh, so does this one. Conclusion, they must be discussing the same thing.'


1 Corinthians 1:24 (NIV)
But to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Even St Paul makes the connection, NonTrin. :ahem: I could present you with verses in the NT that parallel intertestamental lit but I doubt you'd accept it even then.


eh, the "fact remains" that you have listed no facts. You made assumptions and have not backed them up. From what I see, he is a greek scholar.


Where are you looking? His CV is here: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jdb8/jason-cv1.htm (http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/%7Ejdb8/jason-cv1.htm)

I have written to Dr Beduhn about this. If he replies, I'll post it here on the thread. (with permission, of course) That'll settle it, don't you think?


What part of that said Christ has two natures? Bold that part next time so I don't miss it.

:duh: the Eternal, the Invisible, the Impalpable, the Impassible - these are divine attributes

who suffered for our sake, who endured in all ways for our sake - these are human experiences

How did you miss that? :lol: (or are you a fundamentalist? :twitch: :cir:)


Older historical data shows Jesus is not God. See the New Testament and the hundreds of verses in it that distinguish Jesus from God. You are dealing with latter history.


Strawman. Trinitarians are quite happy distinguishing Jesus from God (I assume you mean the Father here.) Latter history? How much later? Ignatius was writing circa 110 AD. How does this affect Jason Beduhn's comment?

What does it mean when Peter declares Jesus is Lord in his preaching in the book of Acts, for example? Or Paul's discussion of Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6?


A little more research on your part will provide many scholars


Which scholars?


Besides, if the lowest of the lowest of angels was spoken of in Ps 110,


Most of this didn't make sense, but please: why would David refer to a low-ranking angel as his lord? (Is Psalm 110 even referring to an angel? Hebrews 1:13 - But does He ever say this of any of the angels: Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet - that's from Psalm 110. Whoops!) And how many lords are there, huh?


Nope, nothing in there about a two headed Jesus.


Screwball award! :thumb: And you chastise me for not doing enough research? I have decided not to discuss the grammar of John 8:58 with you since you can't represent your opponents correctly. What would be the point? :ahem:

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Example:

"More recently I have been referred to a site by a JW named "Heinz" who is conversant in the Wisdom literature -- but regards it as "damaging to Trinitarians" because it shows that "Wisdom was created!" Sirach 24:9 is quoted as, "He created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never cease." But 42:18-21 is not quoted, and that is what makes it clear that while Wisdom (and therefore Jesus) is indeed a "creation" (as Philo says, an effulgence, as light emits from a light bulb) of God, Wisdom is an eternal creation of God and can therefore be spoken of as "created before all things" without any implication that there was a point or time when it did not exist."

The phrase "eternal creation" is nonsensical, akin to saying "square circle", and no amount of double speak will change that.


What phrase best encapsulates the data given in the example, Pythag? If you can't answer that reasonably, then your ad homenim against Holding is unacceptable.

[Pythagoras]

What phrase best encapsulates the data given in the example, Pythag? If you can't answer that reasonably, then your ad homenim against Holding is unacceptable.

"Created" ! , just as the text says, and certainly not "eternal creation" which is word magic.

good luck,

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Well, well:
NonTrin, I apologise for getting this wrong. Dr BeDuhn has replied:



Yes, I specialize in Christian origins and early Christian history, with
expertise in Greek, Coptic, and Iranian languages.

Jason BeDuhn


from Punkish

[Oldmonk]

I'd definitely recommend reading their own literature. It's enough to make you realize just how much they'll stretch things to fit their own definitions.

Btw, anybody ever noticed that their writing in the magazines is on such an elementary level? It makes me feel like I'm in Elementary school reading the Weekly Reader again.


LOL It is just those little questions at the bottom of the pages that does that dude!!! :teeth:

[Oldmonk]

And if you want to be balanced, I recommend the following:

Jesus-God or the Son of God by Brian Holt
Jehovah's Witnesses Defended by Greg Stafford
The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation by Rolf Furuli
Truth in Translation by Jason Beduhn

The first three are JW's, the last one is not. IF you're truly interested in getting more than a one-sided story.



Let us look at a FEW inconsistancies within the NWT that point to a trinitarian view IN SCRIPTURE!!! JW's can check them out in their own "Kingdon Interlinear" (KIT)

Collossians 2:9 ; The Greek says "thotetos" and under that is the litteral translation GODSHIP. The NWT translation says "divine quality" . This is to undermind the strength that this verse has. I ask you simply does "divine quality " mean the same as "GODSHIP"??? We may say that a blond woman has the QUALITY of Brass in her hair... Does this mean that she HAS brass in her hair??? Does having the quality of an author mean you HAVE AUTHORSHIP???

Collossians 1:16-17 ; I have already stated that the word "OTHER" is NOT in the Greek and again is used in the NWT to SUBSTANTIALLY change the meaning of the verse. If the verses is viewed without the "IMPOSED" "OTHER" we see that JESUS created ALL THINGS. And since this doesn't sit well with those of the Witness faith it HAD to be altered to escape the fact that if Jesus created ALL things he MUST BE GOD!!! I refer you to Isaiah Where it states that YHWH created ALL things BY HIMSELF and ALONE.

Galatians 2:20 ; The word "union " is added to escape the fact that Christ lives inside of the believer. How , may I ask is this possiable , if Jesus is anything but God??? Again a DISTORTION of the text to prop up witness preconcieved notions of the nature of Jesus.


2 Corinthians 5:21 ; The NWT says "BY MEANS OF HIM" where as the Greek says "IN HIM". So again a distortion of the text to try to hide the fact that GOD was IN CHRIST. Why is this??? Because what mere perfect man can contain DEITY??? What , may I ask can contain the FULLNESS of Deity but DEITY???

John 8:58 ; "I AM" has been changed to "I HAVE BEEN". Now the Watchtower as I have stated in a previous post invented a new Greek tense for this one..."perfict indefinate". When this was pointed out to be the sham it was they changed it in the KIT ( By the way without admitting they were WRONG). This was really done to hide the allussion to Ex.3:14 [ Which they do ANYWAY in their NWT Reference bible]. Why isn't the blind mans ego emi changed also to I HAVE BEEN in the next chapter ( 9:9 )??? Because it would make NO SENSE as it doesnt in the verse being discussed. By the way WHY did they fall down when Jesus says "I AM HE" and NOT when the blind man says it???

Hebrews 9:27 ; They change what the Greek says from "ONCE" to "ONCE FOR ALL TIME". This I think is done to try to show that a BODILY ressurrection of Jesus was not possiable. Show me another kind of RESSURRECTION!!! Heck even the "mystics" say as the JW's do that we return in SPIRIT.

Philippians 2:9 Again the word "OTHER" is inserted [ NOTE this time NOT in brackets] to try and show that Jesus's name is not ABOVE EVERY NAME.

1 Corinthians 10:4 ; "WAS CHRIST" is changed to "MEANT CHRIST" . If I MEANT to cry does that = I WAS CRYING??? I will let YOU decide that one!!!


Acts 10:36 ;AGAIN the word "OTHER" is inserted and found NOWHERE IN THE GREEK TEXT [ As their OWN KIT shows]. This is done for OBVIOUS theological reasons... Ie if JESUS is LORD of ALL then he must be DEITY [ NOTE I said DEITY and not the FATHER]!!!


Revelations 3:14 ; The NWT says "..the beginning of the creaton BY God." Where as the Greek says the creation "OF God". NOT the SAME THING!!!


So what does this tell you about how the Jehovah's Witnesses in regards to how they treat and handle the Word of God...VERY BADLY!!!

So Have at it and let us see where you stand. Oh and the argument of your position as being Polytheistic is still to be answered to.

By the way you are free to check my quotes of sourses. I don't play games with them as the JW's do.