John 5:17-18

[placebofactor]

John 5:17-18, “Jesus answered them (the Jews), my Father worketh hitherto, and I work. And therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

In order to understand the impact Jesus' words had on the Jewish mind, we have to take ourselves back 2000 years. The Jews understood from Jesus' words, and in their understanding, that whatever the Father’s work was, the Son’s work was the same, showing and also proving that He and the Father are one. Not only had Jesus broken the sabbath, but He had also made Himself equal to God. And for both crimes, according to the Jewish law, he must be put to death.

John 19:7, “The Jews answered him (Jesus), we have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”

The chief priests of the temple charged Jesus with blasphemy, voting that he deserved to die. Matthew 26:65-66, “The high priest (tore) his clothes, saying, he (Jesus) has spoken blasphemy; which further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy. What think you? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.”

As far as the Jews were concerned, and according to the law, Jesus' words were a capital offence, for saying that whatever things the Father does the Son likewise does. Jesus did his work in the same manner, with the same authority, energy, power, and effect as the Father. And for this, he was loved by the Father and hated of men.

Your thoughts:

[onewithhim]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

The trinitarian New Bible Dictionary:

"`Son of God' in Heb[rew] means `god' or `god-like' rather than `son of (the) God (Yahweh)'. In Job 1:6 ... Ps. 29:1; 89:6, the `sons of God' form Yahweh's [Jehovah's] heavenly train [angels] or subordinates" - p. 1133. And, "`Son of ...' is an idiom for `having the characteristics of' or `doing the work of'." - cf. Mt 5:9, 45. - p. 1134, 2nd ed., 1982, Tyndale House Publishers.

And noted Biblical Hebrew expert, Gesenius, tells of only three scriptural Jewish understandings of "Sons of God":

"The appellation of `sons of God' is given in the Old Test. - (a) To angels .... (b) to kings ... as being the substitutes of God on earth .... (c) to men who piously worship God." - pp. 126-127, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Baker Book House.

Luke also gives another Jewish understanding of the term "the Son of God" in the sense of one who was actually created by God: Luke 3:38 (KJV, RSV).

So what should we honestly conclude from the fact that Jesus was repeatedly called the Son of God in the inspired word of God?

I just believe there are no contentions to those who were called "son of God, or sons of God" as God themselves.
Only to Jesus as "Son of God" opposed by the Arians by adding words to the original languages, and produced paraphrase translations to suit their beliefs.

Not true. You are the one that uses paraphrased translations and follow others who believe that Jesus is God, thus resulting in skewed texts. The NWT does not add words to "suit JWs beliefs." We have no reason to tamper with anything in the Bible, because JWs have been proving that Jehovah is God and Jesus is His Son and he is the King of the Kingdom in any translation you want to present to us. The KJV was our Bible for over 70 years before the NWT was available. Honest hearted people could see the truth even in the KJV. There is evidence even there of what we preach, and it can't be tampered with, though people deny what it says.

[Capbook]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

The trinitarian New Bible Dictionary:

"`Son of God' in Heb[rew] means `god' or `god-like' rather than `son of (the) God (Yahweh)'. In Job 1:6 ... Ps. 29:1; 89:6, the `sons of God' form Yahweh's [Jehovah's] heavenly train [angels] or subordinates" - p. 1133. And, "`Son of ...' is an idiom for `having the characteristics of' or `doing the work of'." - cf. Mt 5:9, 45. - p. 1134, 2nd ed., 1982, Tyndale House Publishers.

And noted Biblical Hebrew expert, Gesenius, tells of only three scriptural Jewish understandings of "Sons of God":

"The appellation of `sons of God' is given in the Old Test. - (a) To angels .... (b) to kings ... as being the substitutes of God on earth .... (c) to men who piously worship God." - pp. 126-127, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Baker Book House.

Luke also gives another Jewish understanding of the term "the Son of God" in the sense of one who was actually created by God: Luke 3:38 (KJV, RSV).

So what should we honestly conclude from the fact that Jesus was repeatedly called the Son of God in the inspired word of God?

I just believe there are no contentions to those who were called "son of God, or sons of God" as God themselves.
Only to Jesus as "Son of God" opposed by the Arians by adding words to the original languages, and produced paraphrase translations to suit their beliefs.

Not true. You are the one that uses paraphrased translations and follow others who believe that Jesus is God, thus resulting in skewed texts. The NWT does not add words to "suit JWs beliefs." We have no reason to tamper with anything in the Bible, because JWs have been proving that Jehovah is God and Jesus is His Son and he is the King of the Kingdom in any translation you want to present to us. The KJV was our Bible for over 70 years before the NWT was available. Honest hearted people could see the truth even in the KJV. There is evidence even there of what we preach, and it can't be tampered with, though people deny what it says.

Yes, you've used KJV but add and changed some words to the NWT. And there are articles NWT translators lack Greek credentials specially F. Franz. With such information was provided in Frederick Franz’s 1911 autobiography in which he published his own college transcript. https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/q ... anslation/

As you've said that your church used KJV for over 70 years.
Can you say that the NWT translate the same with KJV?
If you can say yes, that's good.
But if you say no, then there's really addition and changes made to suit the Arians belief.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

The trinitarian New Bible Dictionary:

"`Son of God' in Heb[rew] means `god' or `god-like' rather than `son of (the) God (Yahweh)'. In Job 1:6 ... Ps. 29:1; 89:6, the `sons of God' form Yahweh's [Jehovah's] heavenly train [angels] or subordinates" - p. 1133. And, "`Son of ...' is an idiom for `having the characteristics of' or `doing the work of'." - cf. Mt 5:9, 45. - p. 1134, 2nd ed., 1982, Tyndale House Publishers.

And noted Biblical Hebrew expert, Gesenius, tells of only three scriptural Jewish understandings of "Sons of God":

"The appellation of `sons of God' is given in the Old Test. - (a) To angels .... (b) to kings ... as being the substitutes of God on earth .... (c) to men who piously worship God." - pp. 126-127, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Baker Book House.

Luke also gives another Jewish understanding of the term "the Son of God" in the sense of one who was actually created by God: Luke 3:38 (KJV, RSV).

So what should we honestly conclude from the fact that Jesus was repeatedly called the Son of God in the inspired word of God?

I just believe there are no contentions to those who were called "son of God, or sons of God" as God themselves.
Only to Jesus as "Son of God" opposed by the Arians by adding words to the original languages, and produced paraphrase translations to suit their beliefs.

Not true. You are the one that uses paraphrased translations and follow others who believe that Jesus is God, thus resulting in skewed texts. The NWT does not add words to "suit JWs beliefs." We have no reason to tamper with anything in the Bible, because JWs have been proving that Jehovah is God and Jesus is His Son and he is the King of the Kingdom in any translation you want to present to us. The KJV was our Bible for over 70 years before the NWT was available. Honest hearted people could see the truth even in the KJV. There is evidence even there of what we preach, and it can't be tampered with, though people deny what it says.

You wrote, "The NWT does not add words to "suit JWs beliefs." We have no reason to tamper with anything in the Bible, because JWs have been proving that Jehovah is God and Jesus is His Son and he is the King of the Kingdom in any translation you want to present to us."

Who are you trying to convince? Yourself! What a joke. No, you don't add words, the Watchtower adds and changes words.

N.W.T. "Colossians 1:16, "BECAUSE BY MEANS of him all OTHER things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All OTHER things have been created THROUGH him and for him."

In 1 Colossians 1:16 ALONE, your organization has added two words and changed others. Why? In order to strip Jesus of his divinity. Not one Jehovah's Witness has explained how you make or create something THROUGH someone, and then claim they did not create? What a joke. The watchtower PSUDO Bible was translated by mystery writers, people with unknown qualifications and credentials.

[tygger2]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #13]

post 13 above tells us "Who are you trying to convince? Yourself! What a joke. No, you don't add words, the Watchtower adds and changes words.

"N.W.T. "Colossians 1:16, "BECAUSE BY MEANS of him all OTHER things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All OTHER things have been created THROUGH him and for him."

"In 1 Colossians 1:16 ALONE, your organization has added two words and changed others. Why? In order to strip Jesus of his divinity. Not one Jehovah's Witness has explained how you make or create something THROUGH someone, and then claim they did not create? What a joke."
.................................................................

Let's take the added "other" first.

All Bible translators supply needed words in accordance with their own understanding of what meaning the Bible writer actually intended. Any serious Bible student knows this elementary fact. You can see that the KJV translators (and NIV, NKJV, TEV/GNB, Beck, etc.) added the word "other" at Acts 5:29 (and rightly so) even though it is not actually written in the original text (also compare KJV at Job 24:24). Were they, then, dishonestly, blasphemously adding to God's Word? Of course not!

The Bible writers very often excluded the subject of a clause - or the person speaking/writing the clause when using the term “all” (and “every”). This is a common usage even today. For example, the police sergeant making an arrest of a criminal group might say: “Everyone in this room is under arrest!” - (person speaking excluded.) Obviously the sergeant does not include himself (nor his captain who is with him) even though he says “everyone”! Or “the criminal tied up everyone in the room before stealing the gems.” - (subject of clause excluded.) Obviously the criminal didn’t also tie himself up.

We find at Ephesians 4:6 that there is - "one God and Father of all" (NRSV). Obviously God here is not the father of himself. Again, the subject ("God") is excluded from the word "all." It is clearly understood to mean that God is the Father [Creator] of all other things.

And we find NEB; REB; NJB; NAB ('91); GNB; and LB (for example) have honestly added "other" at Ezek. 31:5 to show that a certain tree towered above "all other trees" whereas KJV, NASB, RSV (for example) have it towering "above all trees." Since it does not tower above itself, the Bible writer obviously excluded it from the phrase "all trees" (even though it is also a tree itself and a part of "all trees") just as Col. 1:16 excludes Jesus from all other things.

In Matthew 10:22, Jesus tells his followers: "and you will be hated by all because of my name." - NRSV. Certainly, Jesus didn't mean that his true followers would be hated by Jesus himself or God. And most certainly he didn't mean they would be hated by themselves! (Remember, the subject - as in 1 Cor. 1:16 - is most often understood to be excluded from the "all" statements.)

An American Translation, The Common Bible, The Amplified Bible, The Twentieth Century New Testament, and translations by C. B. Williams, Moffatt, Beck, and Weymouth all add “other” after “all” at 1 Cor. 15:24 (e.g. “when he will put an end to all other government, authority, and power” - C. B. Williams, The New Testament in the Language of the People, Moody Press, 1963). [see first Heb. 2:8] Although the NWT does not happen to add “other” at that scripture, its translators (as well as every other Jehovah’s Witness on earth) would whole-heartedly agree that those who have added “other” there have done so properly and that the original Bible writer so intended the meaning! And conversely, at Jn 2:10 the NWT has added “other,” and, although most [other] translations do not add it, I’m sure most people would agree that, whether actually written in the scripture or not, context demands such an understanding: “Every other man puts out the fine wine first...”
Again, at 1 Cor. 6:18 the respected trinitarian Bibles NIV, NASB, NEB, REB, AT, GNB, TEV, JB, NJB (among others) have added "other" to the text. And the NWT agrees whole-heartedly! And at Matt. 6:33 JB, AT, GNB, TEV, and Beck (Lutheran scholar) have added "other" (NEB has added "the rest"), and, again, the NWT agrees. Or how about Luke 13:2:

"all the other Galileans" - NIV, Luke 13:2

"all other Galileans" - NASB

"all other Galileans" - NAB ('91)

"all other Galileans" - NRSV

"all other Galileans" - NKJV

"all the other Galileans" - RSV

"anyone else in Galilee" - NEB and REB

"than any other Galileans" - JB

"than all other Galileans" - NJB

"any other Galileans" - AT

"everyone else in Galilee" - CEV.

"all other Galileans" - TEV.

"all other Galilaeans" - BBE

"other people from Galilee" - GodsWord

"all the other Galileans" - ISV NT

"the rest of the Galileans" - Moffatt

There are many more additions of "other" and others in all Bibles.

[tygger2]

[Replying to tygger2 in post #14]

"THROUGH"

Post 13 above tells us "Who are you trying to convince? Yourself! What a joke. No, you don't add words, the Watchtower adds and changes words.

"N.W.T. "Colossians 1:16, "BECAUSE BY MEANS of him all OTHER things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All OTHER things have been created THROUGH him and for him."

"In 1 Colossians 1:16 ALONE, your organization has added two words and changed others. Why? In order to strip Jesus of his divinity. Not one Jehovah's Witness has explained how you make or create something THROUGH someone, and then claim they did not create? What a joke."

.........................................................................

The word in question at the beginning of the verse is en is most often translated as "in." However, it has many other meanings. See Strongs, Thayers, etc. Among these meaning is "by," "through," etc. The word normally used for "through" is dia or di and it is found in the text at the place where I have bolded THROUGH above.
As for meaning of "BECAUSE BY MEANS of him (or "through"), it is found in the word en mentioned above. Although it is not expected that trinitarian translators would choose the "through" meaning here, I've found that AT (Goodspeed and Smith), GNT, and NLT have used it where the NWT uses "by means of." - No joke.

[Capbook]

[Replying to tygger2 in post #14]

"THROUGH"

Post 13 above tells us "Who are you trying to convince? Yourself! What a joke. No, you don't add words, the Watchtower adds and changes words.

"N.W.T. "Colossians 1:16, "BECAUSE BY MEANS of him all OTHER things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All OTHER things have been created THROUGH him and for him."

"In 1 Colossians 1:16 ALONE, your organization has added two words and changed others. Why? In order to strip Jesus of his divinity. Not one Jehovah's Witness has explained how you make or create something THROUGH someone, and then claim they did not create? What a joke."

.........................................................................

The word in question at the beginning of the verse is en is most often translated as "in." However, it has many other meanings. See Strongs, Thayers, etc. Among these meaning is "by," "through," etc. The word normally used for "through" is dia or di and it is found in the text at the place where I have bolded THROUGH above.
As for meaning of "BECAUSE BY MEANS of him (or "through"), it is found in the word en mentioned above. Although it is not expected that trinitarian translators would choose the "through" meaning here, I've found that AT (Goodspeed and Smith), GNT, and NLT have used it where the NWT uses "by means of." - No joke.

Do you mean the Greek word "εν " that bears Strong#G1722? The Bible lexicon defined it as in, by, with etc.
No word "through, because by means and by means of" in the definition of Bible lexicons.

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) οτι G3754 CONJ  εν G1722 PREP  αυτω G846 P-DSM  εκτισθη G2936 V-API-3S  τα G3588 T-NPN  παντα G3956 A-NPN  εν G1722 PREP  τοις G3588 T-DPM  ουρανοις G3772 N-DPM  και G2532 CONJ  επι G1909 PREP  της G3588 T-GSF  γης G1093 N-GSF  τα G3588 T-NPN  ορατα G3707 A-NPN  και G2532 CONJ  τα G3588 T-NPN  αορατα G517 A-NPN  ειτε G1535 CONJ  θρονοι G2362 N-NPM  ειτε G1535 CONJ  κυριοτητες G2963 N-NPF  ειτε G1535 CONJ  αρχαι G746 N-NPF  ειτε G1535 CONJ  εξουσιαι G1849 N-NPF  τα G3588 T-NPN  παντα G3956 A-NPN  δι G1223 PREP  αυτου G846 P-GSM  και G2532 CONJ  εις G1519 PREP  αυτον G846 P-ASM  εκτισται G2936 V-RPI-3S

G1722 (Thayer)
ἐν en
Thayer Definition:
1) in, by, with etc

G1722 (Mounce)
ἐν
en
2,752x: followed by the dat., in, Mat 8:6; Mrk 12:26; Rev 6:6,; upon, Luk 8:32; among, Mat 11:11; before, in the presence of, Mrk 8:38; in the sight, estimation of, 1Co 14:11; before, judicially, 1Co 6:2; in, of state, occupation, habit, Mat 21:22; Luk 7:25; Rom 4:10; in the case of, Mat 17:12; in respect of, Luk 1:7; 1Co 1:7; on occasion of, on the ground of, Mat 6:7; Luk 1:21; used of the thing by which an oath is made, Mat 5:34; of the instrument, means, efficient cause, Rom 12:21; Act 4:12; equipped with, furnished with, 1Co 4:21; Heb 9:25; arrayed with, accompanied by, Luk 14:31; Jud 1:14; of time, during, in the course of, Mat 2:1; in NT of demoniacal possession, possessed by, Mrk 5:2.

[tygger2]

[Replying to Capbook in post #16]

Yes, I mean en (1722) as found in KJV (according to Strong's) translated as "through" 37 times. And listed in its list of translated meanings.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to tygger2 in post #14]

"THROUGH"

Post 13 above tells us "Who are you trying to convince? Yourself! What a joke. No, you don't add words, the Watchtower adds and changes words.

"N.W.T. "Colossians 1:16, "BECAUSE BY MEANS of him all OTHER things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All OTHER things have been created THROUGH him and for him."

"In 1 Colossians 1:16 ALONE, your organization has added two words and changed others. Why? In order to strip Jesus of his divinity. Not one Jehovah's Witness has explained how you make or create something THROUGH someone, and then claim they did not create? What a joke."

.........................................................................

The word in question at the beginning of the verse is en is most often translated as "in." However, it has many other meanings. See Strongs, Thayers, etc. Among these meaning is "by," "through," etc. The word normally used for "through" is dia or di and it is found in the text at the place where I have bolded THROUGH above.
As for meaning of "BECAUSE BY MEANS of him (or "through"), it is found in the word en mentioned above. Although it is not expected that trinitarian translators would choose the "through" meaning here, I've found that AT (Goodspeed and Smith), GNT, and NLT have used it where the NWT uses "by means of." - No joke.

Do you mean the Greek word "εν " that bears Strong#G1722? The Bible lexicon defined it as in, by, with etc.
No word "through, because by means and by means of" in the definition of Bible lexicons.

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) οτι G3754 CONJ  εν G1722 PREP  αυτω G846 P-DSM  εκτισθη G2936 V-API-3S  τα G3588 T-NPN  παντα G3956 A-NPN  εν G1722 PREP  τοις G3588 T-DPM  ουρανοις G3772 N-DPM  και G2532 CONJ  επι G1909 PREP  της G3588 T-GSF  γης G1093 N-GSF  τα G3588 T-NPN  ορατα G3707 A-NPN  και G2532 CONJ  τα G3588 T-NPN  αορατα G517 A-NPN  ειτε G1535 CONJ  θρονοι G2362 N-NPM  ειτε G1535 CONJ  κυριοτητες G2963 N-NPF  ειτε G1535 CONJ  αρχαι G746 N-NPF  ειτε G1535 CONJ  εξουσιαι G1849 N-NPF  τα G3588 T-NPN  παντα G3956 A-NPN  δι G1223 PREP  αυτου G846 P-GSM  και G2532 CONJ  εις G1519 PREP  αυτον G846 P-ASM  εκτισται G2936 V-RPI-3S

G1722 (Thayer)
ἐν en
Thayer Definition:
1) in, by, with etc

I think that Thayer's definition "by" is sufficiently close in meaning to "through" to show that "through" is not incorrect.

[Capbook]

[Replying to tygger2 in post #14]

"THROUGH"

Post 13 above tells us "Who are you trying to convince? Yourself! What a joke. No, you don't add words, the Watchtower adds and changes words.

"N.W.T. "Colossians 1:16, "BECAUSE BY MEANS of him all OTHER things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All OTHER things have been created THROUGH him and for him."

"In 1 Colossians 1:16 ALONE, your organization has added two words and changed others. Why? In order to strip Jesus of his divinity. Not one Jehovah's Witness has explained how you make or create something THROUGH someone, and then claim they did not create? What a joke."

.........................................................................

The word in question at the beginning of the verse is en is most often translated as "in." However, it has many other meanings. See Strongs, Thayers, etc. Among these meaning is "by," "through," etc. The word normally used for "through" is dia or di and it is found in the text at the place where I have bolded THROUGH above.
As for meaning of "BECAUSE BY MEANS of him (or "through"), it is found in the word en mentioned above. Although it is not expected that trinitarian translators would choose the "through" meaning here, I've found that AT (Goodspeed and Smith), GNT, and NLT have used it where the NWT uses "by means of." - No joke.

Do you mean the Greek word "εν " that bears Strong#G1722? The Bible lexicon defined it as in, by, with etc.
No word "through, because by means and by means of" in the definition of Bible lexicons.

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) οτι G3754 CONJ  εν G1722 PREP  αυτω G846 P-DSM  εκτισθη G2936 V-API-3S  τα G3588 T-NPN  παντα G3956 A-NPN  εν G1722 PREP  τοις G3588 T-DPM  ουρανοις G3772 N-DPM  και G2532 CONJ  επι G1909 PREP  της G3588 T-GSF  γης G1093 N-GSF  τα G3588 T-NPN  ορατα G3707 A-NPN  και G2532 CONJ  τα G3588 T-NPN  αορατα G517 A-NPN  ειτε G1535 CONJ  θρονοι G2362 N-NPM  ειτε G1535 CONJ  κυριοτητες G2963 N-NPF  ειτε G1535 CONJ  αρχαι G746 N-NPF  ειτε G1535 CONJ  εξουσιαι G1849 N-NPF  τα G3588 T-NPN  παντα G3956 A-NPN  δι G1223 PREP  αυτου G846 P-GSM  και G2532 CONJ  εις G1519 PREP  αυτον G846 P-ASM  εκτισται G2936 V-RPI-3S

G1722 (Thayer)
ἐν en
Thayer Definition:
1) in, by, with etc

I think that Thayer's definition "by" is sufficiently close in meaning to "through" to show that "through" is not incorrect.

It maybe close but Thayer did not include "through" in his definition. I believe we are fond to add words which are not there.

[tygger2]

[Replying to Capbook in post #19]

Thayer (#1722) p. 210 (1984 printing) ".... d. of the instrument or means by or with which anything is accomplished ..., where we say with, by means of, by (through);"

"(through)" above in parenthesis is in the original, I didn't add it.