LDS and JW's

[dj_dave]

zerinus;They were resurrected shortly after Jesus was resurrected; therefore Jesus was still the firstborn form the dead.[/COLOR:

Actually the account talks about them during the earthquake at Jesus’ DEATH not resurrection.

 

[zerinus]

QUOTE: [Case of the rich man and beggar who died is another good example. It is a bit lengthy, but all of it is significant, so I am going to quote it in full:*

Teachers of hellfire and life after death eagerly point to this account as definite proof that there is indeed a hell of torment that awaits the wicked. But, in so doing, they disregard such clear and repeated Biblical statements as: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4, 20) And: “As for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5) Clearly these statements do not support the idea of torment for “lost souls” in a fiery hell.
(Ecclesiastes 9:10) ...All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in She′ol, (the Grave) the place to which you are going.

Sincere seekers for the truth want to know what is right. They realize that they would only be fooling themselves if they rejected portions of God’s Word while claiming to base their beliefs on other parts. They want to know what the Bible actually says about the condition of the dead. And, to fill out the picture, they want to know the meaning of what is said about the rich man who experienced torment in Hades, and how that fits in with the rest of the Bible.

Please read Luke 16:19-31

Now, Note what is said about the rich man. Why was he tormented in Hades? What had he done? Jesus did not say that the rich man led a degraded life, did he? The rich man lacked compassion for him. But did that failing distinguish him sufficiently from Lazarus?

Think about what Jesus said concerning Lazarus. Is there anything in the account to lead us to conclude that, if the situation had been reversed, Lazarus would have been a compassionate man? He merely described Lazarus as a sickly beggar.

So is it logical to conclude that all sickly beggars will receive divine blessings at death, whereas all rich men will go to a place of conscious torment? The Bible contains the prayerful expression: “Give me neither poverty nor riches.” (Proverbs 30:8) And of his time, King David wrote: “I have not seen anyone righteous left entirely, nor his offspring looking for bread.”—Psalm 37:25.

If we take Jesus’ words literally, we would have to draw still other conclusions that would make the illustration strange indeed. These include: That those enjoying celestial happiness are in position to see and speak to those suffering torment in Hades. That the water adhering to one’s fingertip is not evaporated by the fire of Hades. And, that, although the torment of Hades is great, a mere drop of water would bring relief to the sufferer.Taken literally, do these things sound reasonable to you? Or, do you feel, instead, that what Jesus said was not meant to be taken literally? Is there any way to be sure?

Examine the context. To whom was Jesus talking? At Luke 16:14 we are told: “Now the Pharisees, who were money lovers, were listening to all these things, and they began to sneer at him.”

Since Jesus spoke in the hearing of the Pharisees, was he relating an actual case or was he simply using an illustration? Concerning Jesus’ method of teaching the crowds, we read: “Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them.” (Matthew 13:34) Accordingly, the account about the rich man and Lazarus must be an illustration.

KEEP READING: This illustration was evidently directed to the Pharisees. As a class they were like the rich man. They loved money, as well as prominence and flattering titles. Jesus said of them: “All the works they do they do to be viewed by men; for they broaden the scripture-containing cases that they wear as safeguards, and enlarge the fringes of their garments. They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues, and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men.”—Matthew 23:5-7.

The Pharisees looked down on others, especially on tax collectors, harlots and others having the reputation of being sinners. (Luke 18:11, 12) On one occasion when officers, sent to arrest Jesus, came back empty-handed because of having been impressed by his teaching, the Pharisees spoke up: “You have not been misled also, have you? Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? But this crowd that does not know the Law are accursed people.”—John 7:47-49.

continued…

I think that you have misunderstood the meaning of that parable. The meaning of the parable is simply that one should be merciful and compassionate towards one’s fellow beings, and use the wealth and means which one is blessed with to alleviate the suffering of the poor and the needy rather than on one’s own opulence. However the parable, even if fictitious (which I doubt), must have some connection with reality for it to be meaningful; and that means that man must have a spirit that survives him after death, which could then suffer happiness or unhappiness depending on how he conducted himself in this life.

 

[zerinus]

IMPORTANT POINT

On the day of Pentecost of the year 33*C.E. the change in conditions was accomplished. At that time the new covenant replaced the old Law covenant. Those who had repented and accepted Jesus were then fully released from the old Law covenant. They died to it. On that day of Pentecost there was also unmistakable evidence that the disciples of Jesus Christ had been exalted far above the Pharisees and other prominent religious leaders. Not the religious leaders of Judaism, but these disciples received God’s spirit, enabling them to speak about “the magnificent things of God” in the native languages of people from widely scattered places. (Acts 2:5-11) The “Lazarus” class had indeed come into the **favored situation **by becoming the spiritual seed of the Greater Abraham, Jehovah. This was pictured as the “bosom position.”—Compare John 1:18.

As for the unrepentant Pharisees and other prominent religious leaders, they were dead to their former position of seeming favor. They were in “Hades.” Remaining unrepentant, they were separated from the faithful disciples of Jesus as if by a “great chasm.” This was a **“chasm” **of God’s unchangeable, righteous judgment. Of this, we read in Scripture: “Your judicial decision is a vast watery deep.”—Psalm 36:6.

The “rich man” class was also tormented. How? By the fiery judgment messages of God being proclaimed by Jesus’ disciples.They tried desperately to stop the proclamation. When the apostles of Jesus Christ made their defense before the Jewish supreme court composed of prominent religious men, the judges “felt deeply cut and were wanting to do away with them.” (Acts 5:33) Later, the disciple Stephen’s defense had a like tormenting effect upon the members of that court. “They felt cut to their hearts and began to gnash their teeth at him.”—Acts 7:54.

These religious leaders wanted the disciples of Jesus to come and ‘cool their tongue.’ They wanted the “Lazarus” class to leave the “bosom position” of God’s favor and present his message in such a way as not to cause them discomfort. Similarly, they wanted the “Lazarus” class to **water down God’s message so as not to put their “five brothers,” their religious allies, in a “place of torment.” **Yes, they did not want any of their associates to be tormented by judgment messages.

But, as indicated by Jesus’ illustration, neither the “rich man” class nor his religious allies would be freed from the tormenting effects of the message proclaimed by the “Lazarus” class. The apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ refused to water down the message. They refused to stop teaching on the basis of Jesus’ name. Their reply to the Jewish supreme court was: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 5:29.

If the religious allies of the “rich man” wanted to escape that torment, they could do so. They had “Moses and the Prophets,” that is, they had the inspired Holy Scriptures written by Moses and other ancient prophets. Not once did those inspired Scriptures point to any literal place of torment after death, but they did contain all that was necessary to identify Jesus as the promised Messiah or Christ. (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19; 1*Peter 1:10, 11) Hence, if the “rich man” class and his “five brothers” had paid attention to “Moses and the Prophets,” they would have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. That would have brought them in line for divine favor and shielded them from the tormenting effects of God’s judgment message.

There is little reason for Pastors not to be familiar with this understanding of Jesus’ parable. A leading Protestant commentary, The Interpreter’s Bible, calls attention to a similar explanation. It points out that many interpreters believe Jesus’ words to be “an allegorical appendix that presupposes the conflict between early Christianity and orthodox Judaism. The rich man and his brothers represent the unbelieving Jews. Jesus is made to assert that they have stubbornly refused to repent in spite of the obvious testimony to himself in Scripture and to predict that they will fail to be impressed by his resurrection. It is conceivable that Luke and his readers imposed some such interpretation on these verses.” And, in a footnote on Luke chapter 16, the Catholic Jerusalem Bible acknowledges that this is a “parable in story form without reference to any historical personage.”

Accept or reject this explaination…i accept it.

See my previous post.

 

[zerinus]

so YOU say. But, Paul said a “little lower than the angels” THEN he said "crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."NOT “who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death”
…in other words, for the suffering of death he was Crowned with Glory

Absolutely not! That is definitely not the correct meaning; and the scriptures you had quoted do not support it either.

 

[zerinus]

They were resurrected shortly after Jesus was resurrected; therefore Jesus was still the firstborn form the dead.

Actually the account talks about them during the earthquake at Jesus’ DEATH not resurrection.

I agree, it does say that. I just checked with the Book of Mormon, and it says the same thing too! I hadn’t noticed that before. That does present a problem. I don’t have a solution to it right now. I have to think about it more. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[dj_dave]

Originally Posted by zerinus
And thank you for your willingness to discuss the various aspects of your religion. I should also add that I read that book on JW theology around twelve years ago, and have forgotten most of the details. The thing that has stuck in my mind most since first read it is that the weakest point of JW theology at which it can be attacked is the JW belief regarding the identity of Jesus and Jehovah.* If it can be shown that Jesus is the same as Jehovah, that is what torpedoes JW theology. It blows it out of the water. And that is something that can be proved quite easily, as I showed in my latest blog.*

“I read that book on JW theology around twelve years ago” WHICH BOOK? WE HAVE OVER 200

“I think that these references are pretty conclusive that Jesus of the New Testament is the same as Jehovah of the Old Testament. It presents a serious challenge to JW theology which I don’t think they have an answer for”.

HI AGAIN, I JUST READ YOUR BLOG…YOU ARE IN FOR AN INTERESTING SURPRISE. BACK SOON

 

[dj_dave]

/… Continued
*The trouble with that is that you give all your quotes from the JW Bible that nobody except the JWs accept—and in parts it reads very differently from the KJV or other generally accepted translations of the Bible. *

By the way…
Other Favourable Comments on the NWT.

J.D. PHILLIPS: (J.D. Phillips was a Church of Christ Minister, schooled in the
original tongues). “Last week I purchased a copy of your New World
Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an
owner. You have done a marvelous work…I was happy, indeed, to see the name
Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I
pray God that your Version will be used to His glory. What you have done for
the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!”

ALLEN WIKGREN: (Allen Wikgren was on the New Revised Standard Version
committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek text).
"Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such
as…the Jehovah’s Witnesses edition of the New Testament (The
Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 1 page 99)

BENJAMIN KEDAR: (Benjamin Kedar is a
professor at Hebrew University in Israel). “In my linguistic research in connection with
the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what
is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling
repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an
understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a
broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a
second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific
structure of the Hebrew…Every statement of language allows for a certain
latitude in interpreting or translation. So the linguistic solution in any given
case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World
Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not
contain.”

S. MACLEAN GILMORE: “In 1950 the Jehovah’s Witnesses published their New World
Translation of the New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old
Testament is now far advanced. The New Testament edition was made by a
committee…that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.” (The Andover Newton
Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page 25, 26) C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman
notes that on the point of translator bias “the New World Translation of the
Jehovah’s Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism.” (Nederlands
Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280)

WILLIAM CAREY TAYLOR: (William C. Taylor was a Southern Baptist Minister
schooled in the original tongues). “Just when the infidel universities of this
land thought they had laughed out of court the very name Jehovah, up…surges…
“Jehovah’s Witnesses”. …And with considerable scholarship they get out their
own New Testament and lo and behold, they put Jehovah into the New Testament two
or three hundred times…It ought to be there [in the entire Bible] many times”
(The New Bible Pro and Con, Page 75)

C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias “the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism.” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280

CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER: “the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures…the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best
manuscript texts…with scholarly ability and acumen.” (The Faith Men Live By,
Page 239)

EDGAR J. GOODSPEED: (Edgar J. Goodspeed was a Professor of Greek at the
University of Chicago, and also translated the New Testament portion of “The
Bible an American Translation”). “I am…much pleased with the free, frank and
vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I
can testify.”

I’m still working on your “Blog” comments but I am also very busy elsewhere.

 

[dj_dave]

/… Continued
*The trouble with that is that you give all your quotes from the JW Bible that nobody except the JWs accept—and in parts it reads very differently from the KJV or other generally accepted translations of the Bible. *

I almost forgot this interesting piece.

*Of the 21 charts above, the New World Translation ranked the highest, only twice relegating the original reading to the footnotes. Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible and The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research (PTY) Ltd, came in second. The worst offender was Young’s Literal Translation, with the King James Version, New KJV, Darby and the New American Standard Version following closely behind.
The mainstream Catholic Bibles (New American, New Jerusalem, Good News-Catholic Edition) were more accurate than the mainstream Protestant Bibles. *

primitivechristians.com/Bible-Files/emendations.htm

 

[zerinus]

/… Continued
*The trouble with that is that you give all your quotes from the JW Bible that nobody except the JWs accept—and in parts it reads very differently from the KJV or other generally accepted translations of the Bible. *

By the way…
Other Favourable Comments on the NWT.

J.D. PHILLIPS: (J.D. Phillips was a Church of Christ Minister, schooled in the
original tongues). “Last week I purchased a copy of your New World
Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an
owner. You have done a marvelous work…I was happy, indeed, to see the name
Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I
pray God that your Version will be used to His glory. What you have done for
the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!”

---

Thank you for your comments. I don’t think that those few isolated “favorable” comments are sufficient to establish the NWT as a credible translation. If the Watchtower society wants to obtain credibility for their translation, the first thing they need to do is to reveal the identity of the translators. Tell us who they were, and what were their qualifications for the job. But everywhere I look, they are classed as being anonymous! Anonymity and scholarship don’t go together. A scholar gains credibility by becoming known through his publications and research, which in turn gives him credibility in the eyes of his peers, and thus becomes known as a scholar. “Scholarship” that seeks to remain “anonymous” is by that very reason suspect. Interestingly, the identity of the “translators” are not all that secret. They have been revealed, or rather “leaked”. Here is an interesting quote:

In an article on the NWT, one WBTS book states that it is “a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah” (Reasoning From the Scriptures, 276).

One might naturally ask, “If that is so, just who were the translators on the committee who were so qualified to make such an audacious claim to be ‘anointed?’“ Surprisingly, in the same book, in direct answer to that question, the following statement is made: “When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request” (Reasoning, 277).

The truth is that nowhere in the NWT or any WBTS literature are the names of the translators revealed; and while it is true that some other Bible translations such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) do not list their translators in their editions, only the NWT and the WBTS will not send the names to curious inquirers upon written request.

So, do we know who the NWT translators were? The answer is yes, we do know, despite the WBTS’ refusal to release the names. Raymond Franz is a former member of the WBTS Governing Body. In his book, Crisis of Conscience, he states that the translation committee consisted of Governing Body members George Gangas, Albert Schroeder, Fredrick Franz, and then WBTS President, Nathan Knorr.

“Fred Franz (Raymond Franz’s uncle, who later became WBTS President), however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew” (Crisis of Conscience, 50).

The fact is, none of the members of the NWT committee, including Fredrick Franz, were really qualified to make a scholarly translation from the original languages. No one on the committee had more than a rudimentary familiarity with Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. This lack of expertise is clearly revealed in the poor, biased quality of the NWT’s renderings of many key biblical passages. Source.

The JW “translators” were not really qualified to do the job—which explains why they want to remain “anonymous”! All the major Bible translations have been made by committees of eminent scholars whose credibility can be established. By all accounts from what I have discovered, the NWT is not really a “translation” at all, but just a cynical manipulation of the text to make it conform to JW theology.

As for the “favorable comments,” that too makes one wonder. According to this source, they were either not qualified to make such comments, or their comments were taken out of context. It lists all the names that you had mentioned, plus several more besides. The following Web pages contain many examples of the JW biased renderings of the Bible. The second link is particularly lengthy and comprehensive:

freeminds.org/doctrine/bible/misleading-revisions-in-the-new-world-translation.html
freeminds.org/doctrine/bible/review-of-new-world-translation-of-the-holy-scriptures.html

I’m still working on your “Blog” comments but I am also very busy elsewhere.

 

[dj_dave]

/… Continued

*Apart from the fact that I disagree with the peculiar slant you are trying to put on this verse, I fail to see how it supports the argument that Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual and not physical, especially when read in its proper context:

With regard to Jesus appearing in closed rooms, or vanishing out of sight, I should have thought that if He could walk on the water, and raise the dead, and open the eyes of one born blind; that performing a “vanishing act” would have been for Him piece of cake, with or without a physical body! That is no proof that He was not resurrected with a physical body./*COLOR]/

Don’t forget he apostles could do the same thing…

Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form[morphé]." (John 5:37) The apostle John also said to Christians: “Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is.” (1 John 3:2) John’s words would ring false if Jesus had his human body with him in heaven, for then we would know what Christians will be like in heaven after their resurrection from the dead.

 

[dj_dave]

[you for your comments. I don’t think that those few isolated “favorable” comments are sufficient to establish the NWT as a credible translation.

Again we could go back and forth with your sources and my sources.

UNKNOWN FACT: Jehovah’s Witnesses will use ANYONE’S Bible to teach with.
We actually encourage people at the door to get their own Bible if it is handy.

Now, to your Blog.

*QUOTE: The biblical proof that Jesus Christ of the New Testament is the same as Jehovah of the Old Testament, however, is indisputable. Here are some references:

The expression “I am” is the standard trademark of Jehovah in the Old Testament, with which the Jews were familiar; hence their taking offence at His remark, and trying to stone Him, implying that He had committed blasphemy by identifying Himself with Jehovah. Here Jesus informs us that He is in fact Jehovah.

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple … (John 8:58-59.)

**

NOW, let us really take a look at the context:

Jesus identifies himself as the one “sent” by a superior, he did not come of his own accord (Jn.8:16,29,42,). This superior is identified as “Father” and “God” (8:54). Is not the sender
The superior of the one sent? (Jn.13:16 cf Jn. 14:28). Jesus does nothing of his “own initiative” and he can only speak what he was “taught” by the Father (8:28). Jesus does not seek his own glory, but God’s and “keeps His word” (8:50, 54). Could this be said of Almighty God?
So why do the Jews try to kill him? Probably for the same reason that they stoned Stephen. Does this mean that Stephen was claiming equality with God?
Let us look at the context even more closely:
Jesus says they will die (v.21)
Jesus says they are killers (v.37,40)
Jesus says their Father is not God (v.41)
Jesus says their Father is Satan (v.44)
Jesus says he is above Abraham (vss. 53-58)
Says A Rabbinic Anthology, “So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities committed and lies uttered by Israel in this world.” (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p. 676)

It was only after all this, and after FIVE “I AM’s” [EGW EIMI vss. 12, 18, 24, 28, 58] that they tried to stone him. The Jews did not understand the I AM to mean that he was saying he was Jehovah, they were upset at him for elevating himself above Abraham, and this is only heightened by the fact that he was hurling the above rebukes at them, simply put.

Was Jesus claiming equality with God at John 10:34?

“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye
are gods? {10:35} If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God
came (and the scripture cannot be broken), {10:36} say ye of him, whom
the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest;
because I said, I am [the] Son of God?” ASV

As you already know Jesus was quoting Psalm 82 where human judges are called gods. Does it not make sense that the Son of God can be called a god also?
Jesus was adamant about the ignorance of the Jews, so we should not put too much stock in his enemies.
Matt. 12:34 “Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”
Matt. 22:29 “But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”

Notice too other bibles:
there are quite a few more, and some of them are literal translations:
The Living New Testament: “The absolute truth
is that I was in existence before Abraham was
ever born.”
The 20th Century New Testament: “before Abraham
existed I was.”
Noyes, G.R. N.T. (1878)
Jesus said to them, truly, truly do I say to you, from before Abraham
was, I have been.
Hanson, J.W. New Covenant (1884)
Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, I am before Abraham was
born.
Kraeling, E.G. Four Gospels (1962)
With another amen-saying, Jesus declares to them that before
Abraham was, He (Jesus) is (hint of His preexistence) .
Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T.Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed.
Cotton Patch Version (1970)
To this Jesus replied, I existed before Abraham was born.
Ledyard, G.H. New Life Testament (1969)
_Jesus said to them, for sure I tell you, before Abraham was born, I
was and sum and always will be.,
Dr. E.C. Dymond N.T. (1972)
_Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: He saw me in prospect. The fact is, that
long before Abraham was conceived in his mother_s womb, that
individual who I now am had been conceived in God_s mind: He had
completed the plan and specifications, so to speak, and therefore He
was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me.
Good News for the World (1969)
Jesus answer, I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was
born.
Continued

 

[zerinus]

Don’t forget he apostles could do the same thing…

They could do what same thing?

Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form[morphé]." (John 5:37)

That verse is rendered in the KJV as follows:

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. (John 5:37.)

What conclusion did you intend to draw from that scripture?

The apostle John also said to Christians: “Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is.” (1 John 3:2)

That verse is rendered in the KJV as follows:

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2.)

John’s words would ring false if Jesus had his human body with him in heaven, for then we would know what Christians will be like in heaven after their resurrection from the dead.

Although He has a physical body, He is still different from us who dwell in mortality because He has a resurrected and immortal body which we don’t. His body is not subject to corruption and death, whereas ours is. His body is not confined to terrestrial limitations, but ours is. He can ascend to heaven with His body or descend, but we can’t. He has a glorified body sustained by the Holy Spirit rather than by natural food. With His body He can endure the celestial glory which we can’t with our natural bodies. So although He has a physical body, He is still different from us in ways that we cannot imagine or experience. What John is saying is that when we are resurrected and glorified like Him, we will be able to experience celestial life, or eternal life, in the same way that He is able to experience it. We can then relate to Him in ways that we cannot do now.

 

[dj_dave]

_Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: He saw me in prospect. The fact is, that
long before Abraham was conceived in his mother_s womb, that
individual who I now am had been conceived in God_s mind: He had
completed the plan and specifications, so to speak, and therefore He
was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me.
Good News for the World (1969)
Jesus answer, I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was
born.
Continued

The New Testament, An American Translation
Goodspeed: “I tell you I existed before Abraham
was born.”
The Complete Bible, An American Translation
Goodspeed: “I tell you I existed before Abraham
was born.”
New Believers Bible, New Living Translation:
“I existed before Abraham was even born.”
The New Testament, C. B. Williams: “I solemnly
say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.”
The Book, New Testament: The absolute truth is
that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."
The Living Bible: “I was in existence before Abraham
was ever born.”
Lattimore: “Truly, truly I tell
you, I am from before Abraham was born.”
The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text,
Lamsa: “Before Abraham was born, I was.”
An American Translation, In The Language of
Today, Beck: “I was before Abraham.”
New Testament Contemporary English Version:
“I tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was,
and I am.”
The Unvarnished New Testament: “Before
Abraham was born, I have already been.”
The New Testament, Kleist & Lilly: “I am here-and
I was before Abraham.”
The New Testament in the Language of the People,
Williams: “I existed before Abraham was born.”
The New Testament, Noyes: “From before Abraham
was, I have been.”
A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: “Before
Abraham was, I have been.”
Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795)
Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham
was born, I am He.
The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: “Before
Abraham existed I was.”
The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels,
Burkitt& The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,
Blake & Briere “Before Abraham came to be, I was.”
The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant,
Sharpe: “I was before Abraham was born.”
The 20th Century New Testament 1904: “Before
Abraham existed I was already what I am.”
The New Testament, Stage: “Before Abraham
came to be, I was.”
International Bible Translators 1981
Jesus said to them, I am telling the truth: I was alive before Abraham
was born!
The Coptic Version the New Testament in the
Southern Dialect, Horner: “Before Abraham became,
I, I am being.”
The Documents of the New Testament, Wade:
“Before Abraham came into being, I have existed.”
Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961)
Jesus answered them: Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham
was born.
The Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson:
“I existed even before Abraham was born.”
A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida:
“Before Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed.”
The Simple English Bible: “I was alive before
Abraham was born.”
The Original New Testament, Schonfield: “I tell you
for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born.”
The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version,
Miller: “I existed before there was an Abraham.”
Swann, G. N.T. (1947)
Jesus said to them, verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before
Abraham was born_
International English Version (2001)
“I was alive before Abraham was born”

They told Jesus that God was their Father…Was that Blasphemy?

(John 5:17-19) . . .“My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” 18 On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God. 19 Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: “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 8:39-41) . . … 40 But now YOU are seeking to kill me, a man that has told YOU the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41 YOU do the works of YOUR father.” They said to him: “We were not born from fornication; we have one Father, God.”

On to the next portion of your Blog:
“”*
And [the Israelites who came out of Egypt] did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4.)

The “Rock” referred to by Paul in the Old Testament signified Jehovah, thus implying that Jesus of the New Testament was in fact Jehovah. In the following scriptures “LORD” is a direct translation of the Hebrew “Jehovah”:*

 

[zerinus]

[you for your comments. I don’t think that those few isolated “favorable” comments are sufficient to establish the NWT as a credible translation.

Again we could go back and forth with your sources and my sources.

UNKNOWN FACT: Jehovah’s Witnesses will use ANYONE’S Bible to teach with.
We actually encourage people at the door to get their own Bible if it is handy.

Perhaps; but that was the subject that we were discussing, and that was my answer to your post.

Now, to your Blog.

NOW, let us really take a look at the context:

Jesus identifies himself as the one “sent” by a superior, he did not come of his own accord (Jn.8:16,29,42,). This superior is identified as “Father” and “God” (8:54). Is not the sender
The superior of the one sent? (Jn.13:16 cf Jn. 14:28). Jesus does nothing of his “own initiative” and he can only speak what he was “taught” by the Father (8:28). Jesus does not seek his own glory, but God’s and “keeps His word” (8:50, 54). Could this be said of Almighty God?

If by “Almighty God” you mean the Father, that is correct. We don’t claim that Jesus is identical with His Father. The Father and the Son are two separate beings. That is the Mormon belief. What we claim is that Jesus is the same as Jehovah, not that the Father is the same as Jehovah. I think you are confusing Mormon belief with traditional Christian belief. We are not “Trinitarians” in the same way that traditional Christianity is. We believe that Jesus and the Father are two separate biengs; and that Jesus is Jehovah, not the Father.

So why do the Jews try to kill him? Probably for the same reason that they stoned Stephen.

Does this mean that Stephen was claiming equality with God?
Let us look at the context even more closely:
Jesus says they will die (v.21)
Jesus says they are killers (v.37,40)
Jesus says their Father is not God (v.41)
Jesus says their Father is Satan (v.44)
Jesus says he is above Abraham (vss. 53-58)
Says A Rabbinic Anthology, “So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities committed and lies uttered by Israel in this world.” (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p. 676)

It was only after all this, and after FIVE “I AM’s” [EGW EIMI vss. 12, 18, 24, 28, 58] that they tried to stone him. The Jews did not understand the I AM to mean that he was saying he was Jehovah, they were upset at him for elevating himself above Abraham, and this is only heightened by the fact that he was hurling the above rebukes at them, simply put.

I don’t entirely agree with that analysis of those verses. You are mixing up a lot of different verses together. There are two instances in John’s Gospel where the Jews tried to stone Jesus, one of them is in John 8 which we are discussing:

John 8:

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

In this passage it is not expressly stated that they tried to stone Him because they considered Him to be committing blasphemy; but it is clearly implied by the context. The next case is the following:

John 10:

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

In this instance too it was done because of the perception of blasphemy, which is clearly stated in verse 33. The bottom line is that the Jews took offence at Him because they perceived Him claiming divinity for Himself—and He was!

Was Jesus claiming equality with God at John 10:34?

That depends on what you mean by “claiming equality with God”. If you mean that He was claiming to be equal with the Father, the answer is no, He wasn’t, and we don’t say that He was either. But He was claiming to be Jehovah! Those are two different things. See above.
[/quote]

 

[dj_dave]

On to the next portion of your Blog:
“”*
And [the Israelites who came out of Egypt] did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4.)

The “Rock” referred to by Paul in the Old Testament signified Jehovah, thus implying that Jesus of the New Testament was in fact Jehovah. In the following scriptures “LORD” is a direct translation of the Hebrew “Jehovah”:*

The “Rock” referred to by Paul in the Old Testament signified Jehovah, thus implying that Jesus of the New Testament was in fact Jehovah.??? where DOES THE BIBLE SAY THIS?

HERE IS ONE CONSIDERATION:

*** w68 10/15 pp. 639-640 Questions From Readers ***
Questions From Readers

● In what way did the Israelites in the wilderness “drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them,” as stated at 1 Corinthians 10:4?—I. M., U.S.A.

The apostle Paul commented about the provisions God made for the Israelites after they left Egypt, saying: “All ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.”—1 Cor. 10:3, 4.

It seems that the apostle had two meanings in mind here, the first literal and the second spiritual.

In view of his preceding comments about passing through the Red Sea, it is apparent that Paul was alluding to the literal food and drink that God provided miraculously for the Israelites in the wilderness. Jehovah supplied manna on a regular basis for them. Since this literal food was produced miraculously or through Jehovah’s spirit, it might be termed “spiritual food.”

Similarly, God through his spirit provided drink for them. Shortly after leaving Egypt the people lacked water. At God’s direction Moses took his rod and struck a rock, producing water for the some two million Israelites as well as for their animals. (Ex. 17:5-7) Near the end of their forty-year trek Moses again struck a rock and water gushed forth for that huge congregation.—Num. 20:1-11.

How did they drink in a literal way from a “rock-mass that followed them”?

While the rock Moses initially struck did not roll along after them for all those years, the fact is that they had divinely provided water from a rock-mass on at least two occasions, one near the beginning and one near the end of the forty years. So the literal water might be said to have followed them in that sense. Or, when the water was provided in such enormous amounts, it might have been somewhat of a river that “followed” them or went along with them, kept up with them, in that they could drink from it for a while as they journeyed.

But how is this suggestive of a way that those Israelites back there partook of spiritual provisions that followed or went along with them? The Israelites were expecting the “seed” promised to Abraham, Shiloh who was to come. (Gen. 22:18; 49:10) The sacrifices and ceremonies connected with their sins and their need for forgiveness pointed to the Messiah, the antitypical “rock-mass.” As Paul wrote in other places: “The Law has a shadow of the good things to come,” and, “The Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith.” (Heb. 10:1; Gal. 3:24) So, along with providing literal food and drink for the Israelites, God provided spiritual sustenance which followed them or went along with them through the wilderness. The spiritual things relating to the Messiah could sustain their hope and spiritual life.

When Jesus did come as the Messiah, there flowed out from him spiritual waters of life and provisions far more valuable than those literal things given the Hebrews. Jesus said: “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He that puts faith in me, just as the Scripture has said, ‘Out from his inmost part streams of living water will flow.’” (John 7:37, 38) Many Israelites who drank from the rock-mass in the wilderness did not even enter into life in the Promised Land. But to the later Jews who did not stumble over Jesus as the “rock-mass of offense,” Christ gave spiritual waters that became “a fountain of water bubbling up to impart everlasting life.”—Rom. 9:32, 33; John 4:14, 15.

NEXT PART:* "For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour … (Isaiah 43:3.)

This verse becomes more meaningful in the light of the quotations from Zechariah given below.

And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD [Jehovah] said unto me, cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was priced at of them … (Zechariah 11:12-13.)

According to Matthew 27:9, this verse is a prophecy of the betrayal of Jesus Christ; yet it is Jehovah who is speaking, thus identifying Jesus with Jehovah.

In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I [LORD, Jehovah] will seek to destroy all nations that shall come against Jerusalem. And I [LORD, Jehovah] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me [Jehovah] whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him … (Zechariah 12:8-10.)

By all accounts, this is an indisputable prophecy of the Second Coming of the Savior; and the identification of Jesus with Jehovah is undeniable. Jesus [Jehovah] is returning as the “Savior” of the Jews at His Second Coming in the last days, and they shall look upon Him Whom they have pierced."*

 

[zerinus]

_Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: He saw me in prospect. The fact is, that
long before Abraham was conceived in his mother_s womb, that
individual who I now am had been conceived in God_s mind: He had
completed the plan and specifications, so to speak, and therefore He
was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me.
Good News for the World (1969)
Jesus answer, I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was
born.
Continued

The New Testament, An American Translation
Goodspeed: “I tell you I existed before Abraham
was born.”
The Complete Bible, An American Translation
Goodspeed: “I tell you I existed before Abraham
was born.”

---

The KJV is a very literal (i.e. word for word) translation. It tries to render it word for word exactly as it was said in the original. Many modern translations are not. They are “thought-to-thought” translations, rather “word-to-word” translations. That explains the difference between the KJV and the other translations you have been quoting from.

They told Jesus that God was their Father…Was that Blasphemy?

Don’t ask me, ask them! They obviously considered Him committing blasphemy when He called God His Father; although they themselves did the same! So what was the difference? Obviously they thought there was a difference, otherwise they wouldn’t have taken offence at Him as they did.

 

[zerinus]

On to the next portion of your Blog:
“”*
And [the Israelites who came out of Egypt] did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4.)

The “Rock” referred to by Paul in the Old Testament signified Jehovah, thus implying that Jesus of the New Testament was in fact Jehovah*. In the following scriptures “LORD” is a direct translation of the Hebrew “Jehovah”:

The “Rock” referred to by Paul in the Old Testament signified Jehovah, thus implying that Jesus of the New Testament was in fact Jehovah.??? where DOES THE BIBLE SAY THIS?

HERE IS ONE CONSIDERATION:

*** w68 10/15 pp. 639-640 Questions From Readers ***
Questions From Readers

---

Thank you. That commentary appears to me to contrived, artificial, and forced. The meaning is a lot simpler than that. Paul clearly taught that the Israelites drank (past tense) of that spiritual rock that followed them, and then tells us that that “rock” was (past tense) Jesus Christ. There isn’t any room for ambiguity in that. Jesus pre-existed (as Jehovah), and that is the (spiritual) rock from which they drank in the days of Moses.

As for Jehovah being called the Rock in the Old Testament, the examples are aplenty. These are just a few quotes. There are lots more:

Deuteronomy 32:

4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

1 Samuel 2:

2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

2 Samuel 22:

2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer

2 Samuel 22:

32 For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God

2 Samuel 22:

47 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation.

2 Samuel 23:

3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

Psalms 18:

2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

Psalms 18:

31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God

Psalms 18:

46 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted.

Psalms 28:

1 Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit.

In the above verses LORD is a translation of Jehovah.

 

[dj_dave]

NEXT PART:* "For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour … (Isaiah 43:3.)

Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3,*4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior *through *Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Italics added.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi′a‛, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.

NOTICE TOO:

Acts 13:23.“From the offspring of this [man] according to his promise God has brought to Israel a savior, Jesus”

Questions From Readers
● Zechariah 12:10 states: “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” Jehovah is the speaker, and it sounds as though he was the one pierced instead of Jesus. Some argue this proves that Jehovah and Jesus are one in a trinity. So how is Zechariah 12:10 to be explained?—R. B., New York.
To avoid what seems to be a piercing of Jehovah some of the later Hebrew manuscripts read “look upon him whom they have pierced”, rather than “look upon me whom they have pierced”. At first these late Jewish manuscripts show this in the Keri, or corrected reading in the margin; but eventually in some manuscripts the change was brought up into the body of the text itself. …
AGAIN without going into a bucnh of versions…notice:

When sending out his followers to preach Jesus said: “He that receives you receives me also, and he that receives me receives him also that sent me forth.” (Matt. 10:40, NW) This shows that in receiving Jesus we receive Jehovah who sent him. In like manner, to pierce Jesus is to pierce Jehovah who sent him. It does not prove Jesus and Jehovah are one, any more than it proves Jesus and his followers are literally one. In another case Jehovah showed that to reject his representative is to reject Him. When Samuel was Jehovah’s appointed judge over Israel the people came requesting a king instead of a judge. Samuel was displeased when they said: “Give us a king to judge us.” But Jehovah told Samuel: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” (1 Sam. 8:4-7, AS) In rejecting Jehovah’s representative they rejected Jehovah, in effect; but this did not make Samuel one with Jehovah in a trinity.

Some of those used as tools to accomplish Jesus’ impalement realized their mistake and became frightened; the crowds that had sanctioned the piercing smote their breasts when they saw their blunder, and later some involved ones repented and followed Christ. (Matt. 27:54; Luke 23:47, 48; Acts 2:23, 36-42) But the only bitterness and mourning that hit the religious instigators of the piercing was when things did not work out fully for their selfish interests. The ones who truly mourned were his faithful followers. (Luke 24:17)

But as Zechariah 12:10 also foretold, about this time Jehovah’s spirit was poured out upon the faithful remnant of natural Israel, at Pentecost. So the text had its miniature fulfillment.
At the second presence of Christ Jesus the complete fulfillment takes place. His followers are persecuted and jailed and some are killed, and the work of announcing Jehovah’s King and kingdom is pierced and killed.

These things done to Christ’s work and followers are counted as done to him; the persecutors are charged with piercing him. Any mourning by them is in selfish fear when they see coming upon them the dire consequences of their acts. The only true mourning is on the part of Jehovah’s people who had allowed themselves to fall short of their duties and be taken captive in Satan’s worldly system and made inactive in Jehovah’s service.

But Jehovah comes to the rescue of this remnant of spiritual Israel, cleans them up, pours out his spirit or active force upon them, and under the enthroned King Christ Jesus the work is revived. (Matt. 25:40, 45; Rev. 1:7; 11:1-13) Their mourning gives way to gladness.
Hence Zechariah 12:10 cannot be properly understood to support the trinity doctrine.

NEXT QUOTE FROM YOUR BLOG: * "Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his [LORD, Jehovah’s] feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in twain in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west … (Zechariah 14:3-4.)

Again, this is an indisputable prophecy of the Second Coming of the Savior, identifying Jesus with Jehovah.**

 

[zerinus]

NEXT PART:* "For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour … (Isaiah 43:3.)

Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3,*4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior *through **Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Italics added.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi′a‛, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.

NOTICE TOO:

Acts 13:23.“From the offspring of this [man] according to his promise God has brought to Israel a savior, Jesus”

Questions From Readers
● Zechariah 12:10 states: “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” Jehovah is the speaker, and it sounds as though he was the one pierced instead of Jesus. Some argue this proves that Jehovah and Jesus are one in a trinity. So how is Zechariah 12:10 to be explained?—R. B., New York.
To avoid what seems to be a piercing of Jehovah some of the later Hebrew manuscripts read “look upon him whom they have pierced”, rather than “look upon me whom they have pierced”. At first these late Jewish manuscripts show this in the Keri, or corrected reading in the margin; but eventually in some manuscripts the change was brought up into the body of the text itself. …
AGAIN without going into a bucnh of versions…notice:

When sending out his followers to preach Jesus said: “He that receives you receives me also, and he that receives me receives him also that sent me forth.” (Matt. 10:40, NW) This shows that in receiving Jesus we receive Jehovah who sent him. In like manner, to pierce Jesus is to pierce Jehovah who sent him. It does not prove Jesus and Jehovah are one, any more than it proves Jesus and his followers are literally one. In another case Jehovah showed that to reject his representative is to reject Him. When Samuel was Jehovah’s appointed judge over Israel the people came requesting a king instead of a judge. Samuel was displeased when they said: “Give us a king to judge us.” But Jehovah told Samuel: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” (1 Sam. 8:4-7, AS) In rejecting Jehovah’s representative they rejected Jehovah, in effect; but this did not make Samuel one with Jehovah in a trinity.

Some of those used as tools to accomplish Jesus’ impalement realized their mistake and became frightened; the crowds that had sanctioned the piercing smote their breasts when they saw their blunder, and later some involved ones repented and followed Christ. (Matt. 27:54; Luke 23:47, 48; Acts 2:23, 36-42) But the only bitterness and mourning that hit the religious instigators of the piercing was when things did not work out fully for their selfish interests. The ones who truly mourned were his faithful followers. (Luke 24:17)

But as Zechariah 12:10 also foretold, about this time Jehovah’s spirit was poured out upon the faithful remnant of natural Israel, at Pentecost. So the text had its miniature fulfillment.
At the second presence of Christ Jesus the complete fulfillment takes place. His followers are persecuted and jailed and some are killed, and the work of announcing Jehovah’s King and kingdom is pierced and killed.

These things done to Christ’s work and followers are counted as done to him; the persecutors are charged with piercing him. Any mourning by them is in selfish fear when they see coming upon them the dire consequences of their acts. The only true mourning is on the part of Jehovah’s people who had allowed themselves to fall short of their duties and be taken captive in Satan’s worldly system and made inactive in Jehovah’s service.

But Jehovah comes to the rescue of this remnant of spiritual Israel, cleans them up, pours out his spirit or active force upon them, and under the enthroned King Christ Jesus the work is revived. (Matt. 25:40, 45; Rev. 1:7; 11:1-13) Their mourning gives way to gladness.
Hence Zechariah 12:10 cannot be properly understood to support the trinity doctrine.

Thanks for the quotes. I should explain that I started discussing these things with JWs on Internet forums many years ago (not on CAF), and have had lengthy discussions with them about it. So I am not surprised that the Watchtower organization has since cooked up readymade answers for them. But without going into a lengthy rebuttal, which would take too much time, I will simply say that I don’t find their explanations convincing. Furthermore, we know from modern LDS scripture that the reference is indeed to Jesus at His Second Coming, who is identified with Jehovah. Here are the quotes:

D&C 45:

51 And then shall the Jews look upon me and say: What are these wounds in thine hands and in thy feet?

52 Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the Son of God.

53 And then shall they weep because of their iniquities; then shall they lament because they persecuted their king.

 

[ricko]

So you think the KJV is the most accurate bible?

The authority behind the King James bible was…King James himself. The king of England, a ruler. Hardly an authority. How about a Bill Clinton bible? He has as much authority as King James.

Here is just a part of why the KJV is a problem.

However, at times there can be some problems with using the King James version. For example, the English is not the English we use today. So although it is an accurate translation, many people can not accurately understand what is being said in the King James Version.
You are correct, the NLT is not a word-for-word translation. It is a paraphrase translation, which we chose because it makes the meaning clear to non-Christian readers.
I’m guessing that in this case you are referring to the KJV using the term “abusers of themselves with mankind” where the NLT uses the term “homosexual”.
One of the problems with the KJV is that, because of “Victorian” sensibilities the KJV uses obscure euphemisms when discussing sexual sin. An example of this is the use of the phrase “abusers of themselves with mankind.” This phrase is used to translate the Greek word “arsenokoitou” which straight out means homosexual. However, the word homosexual was not acceptable for church people to use at the time the KJV was translated–but you can be sure that they knew what the Bible was talking about-- that “abusers of themselves with mankind” meant homosexual.
The problem is that people today do not know what the phrase “abusers of themselves with mankind” means. So, in this case, those who use the KJV for these verses are the ones who are obscuring the true meaning of God’s word.

So you are wrong. They don’t put the “thought” into the verses they put the words in use today.