Is Jesus God?

All other things came into existence by Jesus THROUGH the power and direction of Jehovah.

All other things came into existence by Jesus

thats exactly right and its the reason why Jesus cannot be Jehovah. Jehovah is the Alpha and Omega in the OT, but you read the alpha and omega in revelation and assume its talking about Jesus only because of the trinity teaching.
Look at Rev 1:8 "I am the Al'pha and the O.me'ga, ... the AlmightyThere is only one 'Almighty' in the OT and its always used in reference to YWHY. The apostle John was not speaking of Jesus when he refered to the Alpha and Omega...he is refering to the A&O from the OT...YWHY because the coming of Jesus is by the grace of YWHY.

"To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:
These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again

Yes we will. And i guess we will know if the trinity is true or not in due time when God himself settles the issue.

I would hate to see you try your hand a mathematics and logic, Jaywill, if this is what you think constitues a good proof

Revelation chapter 2 does not say Jesus is the A&O. Its not in the passage.

"St. John, writing in Revelation I:8, says: 'I am the Alpha and the Omega'. These are the names of the first and last letters in the Greek alphabet, so it is a metaphor for beginning and end. "

Jesus can be declared as the first and the last for a few reasons.
He was the first creation of God and the last of Gods direct creations.
Jesus was also called 'the last Adam' meaning the last perfect man on earth at 1Cor 15:45.

It certainly can if you dont ignore the verses surrounding his own creation including Proverbs 8. We are told that Jesus was the first creation of God and that Jesus became a 'master worker' beside his father.So all things that came after Jesus creation could certainly have come into existence by Jesus hand with the help of his father.

1Corinthians 15:24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power, and, 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.Jesus subjects himself to God, this proves beyond doubt that he is not equal, is not a part of, is not an incarnation of God...Rather he is a separate entity.Yes, he is the savior of mankind but NO he is not Jehovah.

Not really, I have better things to do. But when I see the blatent inanity in his so called "logic" I call it out. I see that you offer no rebuttal to my disassembly of his "proof". I guess I can wait...

Yawn

I was demolishing Jaywill's "proof" which concerned Titus 1-3. Anything to add regarding Titus 1-3? No, thought not. Back-peddling befits you well.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it

if they are trying to convey the idea that they are relating to one person, why would they use the term'of Christ AND OF God'In english, i would read that as refering to two individuals, not one.This is exactly why the list of translations i posted in msg 275 show that the verse is rendered as two indivduals by many translators

you are only assuming that the first and the last in Rev chpt 2 means the alpha and omega. As i showed, Jesus was actually called the first and last for other reasons. So why do you assume that the apostle John is not making reference to these? I find no reason in the text to assume John meant alpha and omega and if he did, why didnt he simply write it as alpha and omega???

The simplest reason i can express for why Alpha and Omega is not a reference to Christ is this...Revelation 1:8 states: The Lord God says, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the One who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty!’Jesus is never called the Almighty. Only Jehovah is called the Almighty.

Its for this reason that we need to know exactly what jesus role in the creation was. This is why Proverbs 8 is such an important passage for understanding that. Jesus was beside God as a master worker, God gave Jesus creative ability and this is why John says that all things came into existence thru him and by him...but tell me this. If the one mentioned in Prov 8 is not Jesus (and its certainly not wisdom because wisdom is someone who can act and think and love) then who is it? Because if its not Jesus, then there is someone greater then Jesus who sat beside God as a master worker.

Because if its not Jesus, then there is someone greater then Jesus who sat beside God as a master worker.

Because if its not Jesus, then there is someone greater then Jesus who sat beside God as a master worker.

that verse that you are using is not translated as 'I AM' by all translators for good reason. We have discussed that verse earlier in this thread.

Responses to BismikaallahumaI AM WHAT I AM [Part 2]
Sam ShamounThis is the second part of our rebuttal to this article. If you have not done so yet, please read Part One first.The authors continue:Analysis of 'B' MarkLXX (the last part of Exodus 3:14):|ho oon = o wn| I AM
|apestalken = apestalken| hath sent me
|metros umas = me proV umaV| unto you.compare this with John 8:58:John 8:58:|prin = prin| before
|Abraam = Abraam| Abraham
|genethai = genesQai| was (or 'came into being')
|egoo eimi = egw eimi| I AM.Observation:
It is clear that the Greek word that has been used by LXX for "I AM" in "I AM hath sent me unto you" (Exodus 3:14) is 'ho oon' and not 'egoo eimi' as in John 8:58. So they are two different words and have two different meanings, and thus there is no connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58.RESPONSE:As we have already conclusively demonstrated in Part One of our rebuttal, Exodus 3:14 refers to the Angel of Yahweh who is actually the preincarnate Christ. Therefore both Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 have a direct bearing on the person and nature of Christ.Furthermore, the authors are simply wrong by stating that the words ho on and ego eimi have different meanings, since the context shows that both phrases point to God’s timeless existence, as we shall shortly demonstrate.TAM'I Am What I Am' or 'I Am The Being'?Exodus 3:14 (LXX) uses egw eimi o wn (egoo eimi ho oon) which means "I AM THE BEING", or, "I AM THE EXISTING ONE". The Greek word 'Oon' (wn) is translated several times in the New Testament as 'being', refer to:Luke 3:23:And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being (wn) the son.....John 7:50:Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came to him before, being (wn) one of them)John 10:33:...and because that thou, being (wn) a man, makest thyself God.So egw eimi o wn (egoo eimi ho oon) should be translated as "I AM THE BEING" not "I Am what I AM". This attempt (evidence of divinity of Jesus Christ) cannot be sustained because the expression in Exodus 3:14 is different from the expression in John 8:58. This is another proof that throughout the Christian Greek scriptures God and Jesus are never identified as being the same person.RESPONSE:It never seems to have dawned on the authors that just because the two expressions are different doesn’t necessarily mean that they are different in meaning. As we shall shortly demonstrate, both expressions are basically synonymous in meaning since they point to the timeless existence of the Lord Jesus Christ. The authors themselves have noted that ego eimi ho on can be translated as "I AM THE EXISTING ONE."The authors then make the following erroneous claim:TAM
C) From the above conclusion we know that the expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used in Exodus 3:14. That is why the various translators of the New Testament had translated John 8:58 into many ways and had not stick to merely translating it to "I AM":1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue Testament, by Jrg Zink.1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.1984: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.1999: "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!" New Living Translation by Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.This is the same with translations from the ancient New Testament manuscripts:Fourth/Fifth Century (Syriac-Edition): "Before Abraham was born, I have been." A Translation of the Four Gospels From thesyriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.Fifth Century (Curetonian Syriac-Edition): "Before ever Abraham come to be, I was." The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.Fifth Century (Syriac Peshitta-Edition): "Before Abraham existed, I was." The Syriac New Testament Translated Into English From the Peshitto Version, by James Murdock seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896.Fifth Century (Georgian-Edition): "Before ever Abraham come to be, I was." The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Briere, published in "Patrologia Orientalis," Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.Sixth Century (Ethiopic-Edition): "Before Abraham was born, I was." Novum Testamentum... Aethiopice (The New Testament in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.ConclusionThe theory of divinity of Jesus through the word "I Am" has not been supported by convincing evidence, so it cannot stand to the scrutiny. Even many of the Gospels as well as the most ancient manuscripts did not use "I AM" in John 8:58, and therefore the word "I AM" in John 8:58 cannot be used as a proof of divinity for Jesus, it is without foundation and a very shaky one at best.RESPONSE:First, the reason why different translations of John 8:58 have different renderings has nothing to do with the Septuagint’s rendering of Exodus 3:14. Rather, it has to do with the context of John 8:58. Scholars have noted that the use of ego eimi in the context of John 8:58 is to highlight past existence that continues to the present moment. This is known as PPA, or present of past action still in progress, or simply as EP, extension from past idiom.The Lord Jesus was claiming to have been in existence prior to the creation of Abraham, and that this existence was continuous.The different renderings of John 8:58 are attempts to best express the force of the Greek construction in the target language. Yet herein lies the problem, namely the problem of the limitations of the English language. Reformed Christian Scholar and Apologist, Dr. James R. White comments on this problem:"Allegedly many of these translations are viewing the phrase as what Dr. A. T. Robertson called a ‘progressive present.’ There are many instances in historical narrative or conversation where the Greek will use a present tense verb that is best rendered in English by the perfect tense. John 15:27 would be a good example: ‘because you have been with me from the beginning.’ The verb is in the present tense, but the context makes it clear that it is in reference to both the past and the present. Robertson notes that this is a common idiom in the New Testament, though he also adds the fact that, in his opinion, John 8:58 is ‘absolute’ and should be rendered as such (which he always does in his works). It should also be noted that it is the deficiency of the English that is to blame for the rendering-to place weight on the meaning of the English perfect tense when rendering the Greek present tense in this way would be in error." (White, The Forgotten Trinity- Recovering the Heart of Christi an Belief [Minneapolis MN; Bethany House Publishers, 1998], p. 97; bold emphasis ours)We therefore see that the authors’ claim that the different readings, both ancient and modern, somehow prove their point to be simply erroneous. The Greek MSS are unanimous that ego eimi is the original rendering. The different translations are simply trying to best explain the meaning of ego eimi in the target language in which John’s Gospel has been translated.Furthermore, in their haste to try and disprove any connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 the authors overlooked two essential points. First, the authors overlooked the fact that in the context of John 8:58 Jesus was contrasting Abraham’s creation with his timelessness. In other words, the Lord Jesus was claiming that the reason why Abraham was able to see Jesus is because, unlike Abraham, Jesus was not created and therefore has always existed. Note the context:"‘Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.’ Then the Jews said to Him, ‘Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You say, "If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.’ Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. WHO DO YOU MAKE YOURSELF OUT TO BE?’ Jesus answered, ‘If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. IT IS MY FATHER WHO HONORS ME, of whom you say that He is your God. Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, "I do not know Him," I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.’ Then the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was (genesthai- came into being), I AM.’ Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." John 8:51-59 NKJVNotice here that Abraham is said to have come into existence (genesthai) whereas Jesus simply is (ego eimi). Noted Christian scholar and apologist Robert M. Bowman Jr., in his response to Jehovah’s Witnesses, notes:"What is it about this contrast between genesthai and eimi that has led to such a solid consensus throughout the centuries among biblical scholars that the words contrast created origin with uncreated eternal existence? BY ITSELF, of course, the word eimi does not connote eternal preexistence. However, placed alongside genesthai and referring to a time anterior to that indicated by genesthai, the word eimi (or its related forms), because it denotes simple existence and is a durative form of the verb to be, stands in sharp contrast to the aorist genesthai which speaks of ‘coming into being.’ It is this sharp contrast between being and becoming which makes it clear that in a text like John 8:58 eimi connotes eternality, not merely temporal priority. (Bowman, Jehovah's Witnesses Jesus Christ &The Gospel of John [Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, MI, 1995], p. 114; bold and capital emphasis ours)And:"He (Jesus) chose the term THAT WOULD MOST STRONGLY CONTRAST the created origin in time of Abraham with his own timeless eternality, the present tense verb eimi... Thus, had Jesus wished to say what JWs understand him to have saidthat he merely existed for a long time before Abrahamhe could have said so by saying, ‘Before Abraham came into existence, I was,’ using the imperfect tense emen instead of the present tense eimi. (This point was made by Chrysostom and Augustine, and reaffirmed by such Reformers as Calvin, and is also a standard observation found in most exegetical commentaries on John and never, to this author’s knowledge, disputed in such works.) Such a statement would have left open the question of whether or not Jesus had always existed, or whether (like the angels) he had existed from the earliest days of the universe’s history. Or, had he wished to make it clear that (as JWs believe) he had himself come into existence some time prior to Abraham, he could have said so by stating, ‘Before Abraham came into existence, I came into existence’ (by using the first person aorist egenomen instead of eimi), or perhaps more simply, ‘I came into existence before Abraham.’ Having said neither of these things, but rather, having chosen terms which went beyond these formulations to draw a contrast between the created and the uncreated, Jesus’ words must be interpreted as a claim to eternality." (Ibid., pp. 115-116; bold and capital emphasis ours)(NOTE- For a listing of scholarly reference works endorsing Bowman’s conclusions we recommend our earlier article.)In light of the preceding considerations, for Christ to claim to be timeless essentially means that he is eternal. Yet for Christ to be eternal means that he is Yahweh God, since only Yahweh is eternal. In other words, Christ being eternal makes him the Existing One (ho on) of Exodus 3:14!Second, the authors failed to note the connection between Jesus’ I AM sayings with the I AM sayings of Yahweh as recorded in the OT. Note the following verses:"See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand." Deuteronomy 32:39Behold, behold that I AM he (ego eimi), and there is no god beside me: I kill, and I will make alive: I will smite, and I will heal; and there is none who shall deliver out of my hands. Deuteronomy 32:39 LXX"‘All the nations gather together and the peoples assemble. Which of them foretold this and proclaimed to us the former things? Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right, so that others may hear and say, ‘It is true. You are my witnesses,’ declares the Lord, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior. I have revealed and saved and proclaimedI, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses,’ declares the Lord, ‘that I am God. Yes, AND FROM ANCIENT DAYS I AM HE. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?" Isaiah 43:9-13All the nations are gathered together, and princes shall be gathered out of them: who will declare these things? Or who will declare to you things from the beginning? Let them bring forth their witnesses, and be justified; and let them hear, and declare the truth. Be ye my witnesses, and I too am a witness, saith the Lord God, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know, and believe (hina gnote kai pisteuseete), and understand that I AM he (ego eimi): before me there was no other God, and after me there shall be none. I am God; and beside me there is no Savior. I have declared and have said; I have reproached, and there was no strange god among you: ye are my witnesses that I am the Lord God, even from the beginning; and there is none that can deliver out of my hands: I will work, and who shall turn it back? LXX"I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more." Isaiah 43:25I, even I, am he (ego eimi ego eimi - I AM I AM) that blots out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and thy sins; I will not remember them. LXX"Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you. To whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?" Isaiah 46:4-5I AM he (ego eimi); and until ye shall have grown old, I AM he (ego eimi): I bear you, I have made, and I will relieve, I will take up and save you. To whom have ye compared me? see, consider, ye that go astray. LXX"I, even I, am he who comforts you. Who are you that you fear mortal men, the sons of men, who are but grass," Isaiah 51:12I, even I, am he (ego eimi ego eimi - I AM I AM) that comforts thee: consider who thou art, that thou wast afraid of mortal man, and of the son of man, who are withered as grass. LXX"Therefore my people will know my name; therefore in that day they will know that it is I who foretold it. Yes, it is I." Isaiah 52:6Therefore shall my people know my name in that day, for I AM he (ego eimi) that speaks. LXXIn this last passage, the Greek can be read, "that ego eimi is the one who speaks," so that ego eimi functions as the name by which God will be known on the day of the Lord.According to these passages Yahweh can say that he is the I AM because:He gives life
He sustains and delivers
No one can deliver out of his hands
He is from ancient of days
He forgives and blots out sins
He alone declares the future and brings it to pass
He comforts his people
Compare Yahweh’s claims with the claims of the Lord Jesus:"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself... Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear HIS VOICE and come outthose who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." John 5:21, 25-26, 28-29"And when evening came, his disciples went down to the sea,and having entered into the boat, they were going over the sea to Capernaum, and darkness had already come, and Jesus had not come unto them,the sea also - a great wind blowing - was being raised, having pushed onwards, therefore, about twenty-five or thirty furlongs, they behold Jesus walking on the sea, and coming nigh to the boat, and they were afraid;and he saith to them, I am [he] (ego eimi), be not afraid;they were willing then to receive him into the boat, and immediately the boat came unto the land to which they were going. John 6:16-21 Young’s Literal Translation

The Greek MSS are unanimous that ego eimi is the original rendering. The different translations are simply trying to best explain the meaning of ego eimi in the target language in which John’s Gospel has been translated.

First, the authors overlooked the fact that in the context of John 8:58 Jesus was contrasting Abraham’s creation with his timelessness. In other words, the Lord Jesus was claiming that the reason why Abraham was able to see Jesus is because, unlike Abraham, Jesus was not created and therefore has always existed. Note the context:"‘Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.’ Then the Jews said to Him, ‘Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You say, "If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.’ Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. WHO DO YOU MAKE YOURSELF OUT TO BE?’ Jesus answered, ‘If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. IT IS MY FATHER WHO HONORS ME, of whom you say that He is your God. Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, "I do not know Him," I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.’ Then the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was (genesthai- came into being), I AM.’ Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." John 8:51-59 NKJV

"What is it about this contrast between genesthai and eimi that has led to such a solid consensus throughout the centuries among biblical scholars that the words contrast created origin with uncreated eternal existence? BY ITSELF, of course, the word eimi does not connote eternal preexistence. However, placed alongside genesthai and referring to a time anterior to that indicated by genesthai, the word eimi (or its related forms), because it denotes simple existence and is a durative form of the verb to be, stands in sharp contrast to the aorist genesthai which speaks of ‘coming into being.’ It is this sharp contrast between being and becoming which makes it clear that in a text like John 8:58 eimi connotes eternality, not merely temporal priority. (Bowman, Jehovah's Witnesses Jesus Christ &The Gospel of John [Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, MI, 1995], p. 114; bold and capital emphasis ours)And:"He (Jesus) chose the term THAT WOULD MOST STRONGLY CONTRAST the created origin in time of Abraham with his own timeless eternality, the present tense verb eimi... Thus, had Jesus wished to say what JWs understand him to have saidthat he merely existed for a long time before Abrahamhe could have said so by saying, ‘Before Abraham came into existence, I was,’ using the imperfect tense emen instead of the present tense eimi. (This point was made by Chrysostom and Augustine, and reaffirmed by such Reformers as Calvin, and is also a standard observation found in most exegetical commentaries on John and never, to this author’s knowledge, disputed in such works.) Such a statement would have left open the question of whether or not Jesus had always existed, or whether (like the angels) he had existed from the earliest days of the universe’s history.

Jesus teaching was based on who the father was. So why do you assume that John is only speaking about Jesus in Revelation. Considering revelation is a vision about the fulfillment of all that God promises, why would John leave the God that Jesus preached about out of the picture?

Do you disagree that Jesus sits at Gods right hand?

Do you disagree that Jesus sits at Gods right hand?

that might be true if John 1:1 didnt actually say that Jesus was 'A' god and not 'THE' God.There are plenty of other bible translations beside ours which shows that Jesus is 'A' god.This does not result in worshiping many gods (polytheism)

Initial Comments:It is important to note that our position is the only position that defines the word "God" [theos] in John 1:1-2 with the identical definition throughout (God, as a class of being, not as a name).
The word "God" is used in two ways. First "God" is used many places as the generic "class of being" definition as in Gen 1:1 and John 1:1. Second, "God" is used in specific personal reference to the Father as in Eph 4:4.
The use of "God" as a class of being in John 1:1, mirrors Gen 1:1 where "God" as a class of being created and made "man in our image". In fact, the only formal personal proper noun/name for God is "Jehovah", not "God". Just as the entire first chapter of Genesis refers to God as "God" (noun/class of being, not personal proper noun/name) and it isn't until Gen 2:4 that God is referred to as "Jehovah" (the formal personal proper noun/name), so also in John 1:1-13, "God" is used in the "class of being" sense and it isn't until John 1:14 that the Father is specifically identified!
Jehovah's Witnesses (Arians), on the other hand, define the first "theos" [God] as a personal proper noun/name for the Father and the second exactly like we do, as a "class of being". The difference is that JW's define Jesus as a lessor class of being, and we, defining the two occurrences of God identically, as an equal class of being! Our position is irrefutably solid and the only consistent one.
We do give honourable mention to the Modalists, (United Pentecostal church International, UPCI), for they like we, do define God identically in its two occurrences in John 1:1. However, they define God as a personal proper noun/name for the same person, thus they want to read into the passage that Jesus is the same person as the Father. This does incredible damage to the distinction of God, so vividly seen in many passages like the baptism of Jesus. We merely ask Modalists: "Who was Jesus praying to? Himself?" Their answer is, that the human half of Jesus was praying to the divine half. So although we give them a gold star for consistency, do fail to win the prize. Jehovah's Witnesses don't even get a gold star!
Arians (JW's) and some well meaning Trinitarians mistakenly translate it "and the word was divine". If John wanted to convey that Jesus had divine qualities, he would have used the adjective for "divine" [theios] as in Acts 17:29 and 2 Pe 1:3. Instead, John used the word for God, "theos".
In regard to the translation "a god", it is well documented and indisputable, that the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses has misquoted many Greek authorities with the intent to draw a conclusion opposite to what that Greek authority intended by his work. Many of the supporting authorities in the footnotes of the early versions of the NWT have been deleted as proof of this. Several of these Greek authorities have written formal repudiations of how the Watchtower deceptively misquotes them.What reputable scholars say about the New World Translation of John 1:1:Barclay: Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."Bowman, Robert Bowman, All scholars agree that in John 1:1 "logos" is the subject and "theos" is the predicate. This sets the translation of John 1:1c as, (The Word was God" not "God was the Word". Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.)Boyer: Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."Bruce: Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]Colwell: Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"Feinberg: Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."Griesbach: Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."Johnson: Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian."Kaufman: Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."Mantey: "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey, Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)Mantey: "Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
Mantey: Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
Mantey: the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)
Martin: Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."Metzger: Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)Mikolaski: Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"Nida: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." (Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.)Rowley: British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."Wescott: Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' ans so included in the unity of the Godhead."We may or may not ever know exactly why the definite article is lacking in verses like John 1:1c; 1:6; 1:12; 1:13; 1:18a; 1:18b. The only thing we can be absolutely certain of is that "a God" is not demanded by the Greek or context! (Even if it is, it still changes nothing.) Honest and informed Jehovah's Witnesses will admit that that "a god" is possible, but not the exclusive translation. They must admit that "the Word was God" is also a possibility. E.C Colwell suggested in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933, that the reason for dropping the definite article in John 1:1c, was to make it clear that he intended to say, "The Word was God" rather than "God was the Word". Although this is possible, such suggestions imply that using the definite article in John 1:1c would force the verse to read Modalistic. (Where the Father and Son are the same person with different roles.) We however, don't really need such explanations, for we are the only position that completely maintains the distinction in persons between the Father and the Son, (avoiding Modalism), while also maintaining that both the Father and the Son are the "God" class of being, equal in stature as God. (avoiding Arianism and Polytheism)
It has escaped the notice of Jehovah's Witnesses that a noun with or without a definite article, does not change its meaning at all! For example there is absolutely no difference between saying indefinitely: "A woman is a manager of a home" and saying definitely: "That woman is the manager of her home" (Tit 2:5). The words "woman" and "manager" and "home" are defined identically, although used indefinitely or definitely. The same thing is true in John 1:1 and every other place in the Bible! Saying indefinitely: "Jehovah is a God" is identical to saying definitely: "Jehovah is the God". In fact, Jehovah is called both "a God" in the Bible. (Mic 7:18, Luke 20:38, 1 Cor 14:33). The meaning of God is identical in both cases. To say, "Jesus is a God" is identical to saying definitely: "Jesus is the God". Again, Jesus is called THE GOD in John 20:28. Jehovah's Witnesses are forced to take the unprecedented position that a noun changes its basic meaning as a general rule, when used definitely vs. indefinitely in John 1:1.
Jesus is called "THE GOD" (ie: theos with the definite article just as in the expression "and the word was with THE GOD" in John 1:1) in the following passages: John 20:28; Tit 2:13; 2 Pe 1:1; 1 John 5:20. So both the Father and Son are called "God" both with and without the definite article.
In the first chapter of John, the word 'God' ('theos' in Greek) is used 13 times. In 7 places theos has the definite article (1:1b; 1:2; 1:29; 1:34; 1:36; 1:49; 1:51) In a remarkable 6 instances (1:1c; 1:6; 1:12; 1:13; 1:18a; 1:18b) theos (God) lacks the definite article. Every Greek scholar will tell you that the lack of a definite article does not mean that the noun must be indefinite. Clearly the meaning of these instances is the Only True "God", even though no definite article is used. In fact the most powerful proof against the NWT's rendering of "a god" in John 1:1 is the NWT itself!

im sorry but i think your 'author' needs to have his head checked.They are two different words entirely. The exodus I AM is a title, while the 'I am' in John is translated as 'I am he' in many other verses that John wrote.If you accept this guys word for it, then so be it. We shoud move onto a new subject.

"Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord - with THE FIRST of them and with THE LAST - I AM HE." Isaiah 41:4 "

"Who has wrought and done these things? he has called it who called it from the generations of old; I God, the first and to all futurity, I AM" (ego eimi). LXX

EMA, from your quote, i can show with just one scripture...jesus own words....how they are wrong.
they say
The difference is that JW's define Jesus as a lessor class of being, and we, defining the two occurrences of God identically, as an equal class of being! Our position is irrefutably solid and the only consistent one.What did Jesus say about himself?The Father is greater than I am. John 14:28
John 5:19 Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner"John 5:30 I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me"John 20:17 Jesus said to her: ..‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’1Cor 11:3 But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; ... in turn the head of the Christ is God"Matt 24:36 Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father"So how consistent are they really? They claim Jesus is equal with God, yet Jesus showed that he was not equal....he did not even have the same knowledge of God concerning the time when God would act.the trinity debate has raged for centuries and it will continue to rage because the teaching that Jesus is God has no basis in scripture. Never did and never will.

I wonder what they think about these scholars and translators who disagree with them?

Jesus, by the way, was the man who had His birth in Bethlehem. That was the beginning of the man Jesus. But as to the Son of God, He is addressed as God in Hebrews 1:8.

Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6, "God is thy throne."
"But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness'" The New World Translation.In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in two legitimate ways:"God is your throne forever and ever....
and
"Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever..."But because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God, they choose the first version, otherwise, the Father would be calling Jesus God and that goes against Jehovah's Witness theology. Yet, most Bibles do not translate it the way the New World Translation does. They choose the other way. Why? Two reasons.First, Heb. 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which says,"Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom" (All Bible quotes are from the NASB).In fact, the ASV, KJV, NIV, and NKJV all translated it as "Your throne, O God..." The RSV translates it as "Your divine throne endures for ever and ever," "but this is a highly unlikely translation because it requires understanding the Hebrew noun for "throne" in construct state, something extremely unusual when a noun has a pronomial suffix, as this one does...The KJV, NIV, and NASB all take the verse in its plain, straightforward sense, as do the ancient translations..."1When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical requirement for this translation, though it is considered to be the best translation by most translators. In and of itself, this is not conclusive because the context of this verse in Psalm 45 is dealing with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God. But, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another. They knew something we didn't. In fact, in Ezekiel 28:12-17 is a section that deals with the fall of the devil. Verse 13 describes how he was in the garden of Eden. Verse 14 says he was the anointed cherub, (v. 15), etc. But the context of this section begins with an address to the king of Tyre (v. 12). Yet, right after Ezekiel is told to write to the King of Tyre he then goes on to describe what the great majority of theologians agree with, a description of the devil's fall. So, we need to look at the context into which the writer of Hebrews put Psalm 45:6. He addressed it to Jesus. Therefore, Psalm 45 is a Messianic Psalm and must in interpreted in light of the NT, not the other way around.Nevertheless, the context of this verse follows:"For to which of the angels did He ever say, "Thou are My son, Today I have begotten Thee"? And again, "I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me"? 6And when he again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." 7And of the angels He says "Who makes His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of fire." 8But of the Son He says, "Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom, 9Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy companions. 10And, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands; 11They will perish, but though remainest...." (Heb. 1:5-11).To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, "But to which of the angels did he say, God is your throne." What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else.Also worth noting here is verse 10: "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands..." This is a quote from Psalm 102:24-25 which says, "I say, 'O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Thy years are throughout all generations. 25Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands.'" Clearly, God is the one being addressed in Psalm 102. It is God who laid the foundations of the earth. Yet, in Heb. 1:10, Jesus is called 'Lord' and is said to be the one who laid the foundation of the earth. This becomes even more interesting when we note that in Isaiah 44:24 it says, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone." If God was laying the foundations of the earth alone, that would mean that either Jesus has to be God, second person of the trinity, who laid the foundation the same as YHWH did, or we have a contradiction in the Bible. Clearly this section of Hebrews is proclaiming that Jesus is God. Therefore, contextually, it is best to translate Heb. 1:8 as, "Thy Throne, O God. . ." and the Father call Jesus God.The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, it cannot permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is God. That is why they choose a translation that does not best fit the context or overall theology of the Bible.

So you should seek to be born again in your human spirit. But to do that you have to receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior God.But you resist that because the Kingdom Hall taught you that Jesus Christ is the angel Michael. You are being deceived Peg.

jw's have come to their understanding through studying many sources...including the catholic encylopedia. You can learn a lot about what is and what is not in there.When they even admit themselves that the trinity teaching is not from the apostles, so tell me why anyone should be inclined to respect it as an apostolic teaching??? Its not a bible teaching, its a false knowledge that the apostles warned christians about.

Can you show me a verse in scripture that states Jesus was god and man?

John 10:33 says 'you make yourself god' ok, however, the same word used in vs 33 is also used in vs 35 where Jesus said"if those ones he called gods..."Thats the same word being used and Jesus applied it to the Jews. So why should the use of the same word be read as 'God Almighty' in vs 33, but simply as Gods in vs 35?its not like the theo in vs 33 used the definite article so it shouldnt be read as a title...its merely a word. And seeing the word God or god is commonly used to denote something superhuman or something venerated in the minds of many it could mean either the Supreme Being, the Almighty, or it could mean a false god, such as an idol.

No, i dont think so... jesus himself stated in verse 36 he states exactly what he means when he says"do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?"This is why i asked jaywill why jesus did not say " because I said i am God?"You cant get around the semantics of Jesus words where he directly calls himself the Son.