Tower Craft: Holes in the 1914 Theory

images (1)

The What Does the Bible Really Teach? book has a section on chronology (pp. 215-217), showing how Jehovah’s Witnesses arrived at the belief in 1914 as “a significant year in Bible prophecy.”

This section exemplifies the absurd “Bible fishing” tactics and claptrap logic which Watchtower leadership have mastered. Here is my response to the arguments raised in the book.

Decades in advance, Bible students proclaimed that there would be significant developments in 1917. What were these, and what evidence points to 1914 as such as important year.

Unfortunately, the Watchtower writers didn’t inform their readers that for decades before and after 1914, these same “Bible students” have also pointed at other years as significant.

All the “evidence” modern JWs try to read into 1914 are events that have occurred all through history. If these Bible students and their theories could be so obviously flawed historically, their chronology couldn’t be reliable either.

As recorded at Luke 21:24, Jesus said: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations [“the times of the Gentiles,” King James Version] are fulfilled.”

Here, Jesus was referring to a time in the future when the trampling of Jerusalem by the Gentile nations will end.

The Greek word for “fulfil” is plero which means to expire or to end. This period is also called “the fullness of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:25) (Though the passage suggests that Jerusalem will be free from Gentile oppression from a while until the Great Tribulation period).

The nation of Israel, however, has been trampled on by Gentile nations starting with Egypt from which God delivered her.

The book of Judges alone details how Israel was oppressed by Mesopotamia, Canaan, Midian, Philistines and the Ammonites when they forsook God. After they divided into two kingdoms (Israel and Judah), they were trampled on by Assyria which captured the kingdom of Israel before Babylon captured the kingdom of Judah.

Even at the time of Christ, Jerusalem was still under the rule of the Romans and today, much of it is occupied by the Arabs.

This should be pointed out because as we proceed, you will see how the Watchtower grossly backdates the prophecy of Jesus in Luke 21:24.

Jerusalem had been the capital city of the Jewish nation – the seat of rulership of the line of kings from the house of King David. (Psalm 48:1, 2) However, these kings were unique among national leaders. They sat on “Jehovah’s throne” as representatives of God himself. (1 Chronicles 29:23) Jerusalem was thus a symbol of Jehovah’s rulership.

This seat of rulership of kings from the house of David is an earthly rule from Jerusalem.

First Chronicles 29:22, informs us that king Solomon was anointed “unto the LORD.” Jesus as the Messiah came from this Davidic lineage, so we can see why it’s called God’s throne. Until the day JWs agree that Jesus is Jehovah, this argument is fatal to their cause.

How and when, though, did God’s rulership begin to be “trampled on by the nations”? This happened in 607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians. “Jehovah’s throne” became vacant, and the line of kings who descended from David was interrupted.

Oh dear, what a tortured path! How can a statement Jesus made in the book of Luke about a future event be referring to an event that had occurred centuries before Christ? Jesus was speaking of the fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles, not God’s rulership.

What year was Jerusalem (capital of the kingdom of Judah) conquered by the Babylonians?

The Jewish Encyclopedia records that it’s 586 BC. The Encyclopedia Britannica says the “kingdom of Judah flourished until 587 BC when it was overrun by the Babylonians.”

The Encyclopedia Americana says the kingdom of Judah “finally fell due to the capture of Jerusalem in 587 BC.”

Why does the Watchtower, in defiance of secular history claim Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC?

Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that they follow the Bible which says the Jews would go on exile for 70 years (Jer. 20:10) and since Cyrus gave his edict for them to return to Jerusalem in 537 BC, they did a straight calculation: 537+ 70 years = 607 BC.

One of them wrote: “Jehovah Witnesses have decided that the date of the desolation of Jerusalem must have been 607 B.C.” [because the] organization, as a whole, over a long term has the guidance of Holy Spirit.”

This excuse is typical of cults. They appeal to history only when its convenient. They make exceptions for themselves from the rules that govern others.

The World Book Encyclopedia says “The exile in Babylon occurred in three waves from 597 to 581 B.C.E. as a result of Judean rebellion against Babylonian rule.”

That is, before Jersualem was finally destroyed in 587, many Jews had already been captured on exile to Babylon.

In 2 Kings 25:12-16 Jehoachin, the king of Judah was captured by Nebuchadnezzar. This happened in 597 BC. This gives a gap of 60 years between 597 BC and 537 BC. Daniel indicated that they had been captured before Jehoachin (Dan. 1:1-3, 6).

Jewish historian, Josephus agrees, that Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians in 605 BC and sent captives from the Jews, Phoenician, Syrians and Egyptians to Babylon (Antiquities 10.11.1).

Additionally, the Jews counted their calendar according to the sabbath years and they must have stopped counting the 70 years at the feast of Tabernacles (Ezr. 3:4).

The Babylonian captivity of the Jews must have started around 604 BC while their nation, Jerusalem was finally conquered in 587 BC.

…Ezekiel said regarding Jerusalem’s last king, Zedekiah: “Remove the turban and lift off the crown. … It will certainly become no one’s until he comes who has legal right, and I must give it to him.” (Ezekiel 21:26, 27) The one who has “the legal right” to the Davidic crown is Christ Jesus. (Luke 1:32) So the ‘trampling’ would end when Jesus became King

God debased Zedekiah by removing his crown and decreed that the kingdom of Judah was to be overthrown and exist no more until the Messiah would come whose right it is; and it would be given Him (Gen. 49:10; Isa. 9:6-7, 42:1).

The trampling of the Gentiles over Jerusalem would end at Jesus’ Second Advent when He will reign as King from Jerusalem.

[Nebuchadnezzar] saw an immense tree that was chopped down. Its stump could not grow because it was banded with iron and copper. An angel declared: “Let seven times pass over it.” – Daniel 4:10-16. In the Bible, trees are sometimes used to represent rulership … So the chopping down of the symbolic tree represents how God’s rulership, as expressed through the kings at Jerusalem, would be interrupted.

It’s mystifying how the Watchtower writer managed to put this art work together. This is a skill an interior decorator needs.

The “chopping down” and “seven times” refer to the 7 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness not to trampling by Gentile nations. How did a dream of Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity relate to “God’s rulership”?

Or how did a Bible passage about a king of Babylon become that of the kings of Jerusalem?

However, the vision served notice that this ‘trampling of Jerusalem’ would be temporary – a period of “seven times.” How long a period is that? Revelation 12:6, 14 indicates that three and half times equal “a thousand two hundred and sixty days.” “Seven times” would therefore last twice as long, or 2,520 days.

That vision neither refers to trampling nor to Jerusalem. If “seven times” means 2,520 days in one passage, it must also mean it in all passages unless otherwise stated.

Using this Watchtower argument: Jacob bowed down to Esau for 2,520 days (Gen. 33:3). The Jews sprinkled blood on their sacrifices for 2,520 days during each day (Lev. 4:6). Israel marched around Jericho 2,520 days on the 7th day (Jos. 6:4). Elijah’s servants looked for rain for 2,520 days (1 Kgs. 18:43) and the resurrected child sneezed for 2,520 days (2 Kgs. 4:35). Do these statements make sense?

On the basis of Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, which speaks of “a day for a year,” the “seven times” would cover 2,520 years

Whether by hook or by crook, the Watchtower is bent on latching on to 1914. But no one has the authority to change a day to a year in any Bible passage he pleases.

If God, who knows the difference between a day and year, said “days” in a certain scripture He meant days, and if he said “years” He meant years.

Just because He commanded Israel to wander in the wilderness for 40 years according to the number of days the spies were in Canaan and appointed years according to the same number of days in Ezekiel’s case doesn’t give anyone the right to conclude that the word days means years in every place in prophecy.

The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne. The period ended in October 1914. At that time … Jesus Christ was installed as God’s heavenly king.”

This is a sandcastle. The Watchtower Society has invested too much in 1914 to give it up, so they disregard Biblical exegesis or history to build their raft.

How did the earthly Davidic throne of Christ become a heavenly one?

When did God transport Jerusalem up into heaven?

Every honest JW must reject the uninspired teachings of the Watchtower and hold to the plain teaching of inspired Scripture.

The Sufficiency of Christ

images (1)

On June, 20, 2016, Pope Francis tweeted:

The Christian journey is based on what I will call the “coordinates of truth.” In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Then in John 17:17, He prayed to the Father, saying, “Your word is truth.

First John 5:6 also says: “It is the Spirit who bears witness [to Jesus Christ] because the Spirit is truth.

In essence, Jesus is the truth, God’s Word – the Bible – is the truth and the Spirit is truth. Any doctrine, no matter how dogmatic, that is not true to Jesus, the Bible and the witness of the Holy Spirit, is a deception.

In a certain Catholic article titled “The Protty Jesus,” the writer stated that the Catholic and Protestant Jesus “are not really related, beyond the most basic things.” Consequently, we non-Catholics “do not worship the same Jesus as Catholics do.”

He’s right.

One of the key areas where we differ greatly is on the sufficiency of Christ – solo Christos. And the best way to demonstrate this is by comparing what the Bible teaches with what Roman Catholicism teaches.

I know the visceral response of the Catholic will be, “We teach and read the Bible too!” Yes, that’s true, but there is a big difference between reading the Bible to learn what God has said in it and reading some contrived ideas into it.

It’s self-deception for one to think he is saved or looking forward to heaven if one believes untruths about Jesus who is the only Way to Heaven.

The stakes are too high and eternity is too real to allow sentiments or rigidity cloud this issue. Here are some examples:

Salvation by Christ or a Church?

The Second Vatican Council decree on ecumenism explains: For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone which is the universal help towards salvation that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained” (Catechism #816, p 215)

Looking at God’s Word on the subject of salvation, you will not find a single verse requiring one to go through a church to be saved.

What did Jesus Himself say?
“For what my Father wants is that all who see the Son and believe in him should have eternal life” (Jn. 6:40).

He says “those who hear my words and believe in him who sent me have eternal life … [they] have already passed from death to life” (Jn. 5:24). He says again “he who believes has eternal life” (Jn. 6:47).

Salvation from eternal condemnation is received by believing in Christ “but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (Jn. 3:18).

If the Catholic church was necessary for salvation, then Jesus was lying.

Apostle Paul wrote: “For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9-10)

Nothing is said about being saved by a church here.

Paul defines the Gospel as how Christ died for our sins and His resurrection and says “you are saved by the gospel if you hold firmly to it.” (1 Cor. 15:2).

He says the Gospel “is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.” (Rom. 1:16).

If salvation is obtained by joining the Catholic church, then Paul was lying and the Holy Spirit inspiring him was also lying.

Apostle John wrote: “Some, however, did receive him and believed in him, so he gave them the rights to become God’s children” (Jn. 1:12).

That’s the only condition to be saved and become a child of God. Therefore, if the Catholic church is the only visible and universal sacrament of salvation, then apostle John was lying, so was the Holy Spirit.

But Jesus is truth, the Bible is truth and the Holy Spirit is truth. The key to salvation is believing in Jesus, not joining a church – whether Catholic or Protestant.

When the Philippian jailer asked Paul “what must I do to be saved?” did Paul say “you must come to the Catholic Church?” No. He said “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31).

The moment one believes the Gospel – which is about the death and resurrection of Christ offering us forgiveness and eternal life – he is saved.

No church can offer salvation because the church is simply a community of the saved. The church is not the Saviour. Not a single person in the New Testament looked up to a church for salvation and why would they, when it’s clear that Jesus alone is the Saviour.

If the Catholic church is right about this, then the Bible was wrong and Jesus was mistaken.

The Sufficiency of Christ’s Mediation

For, taken up to heaven, she [Mary] did not lay aside this saving role, but by her manifold acts of intercession continues to win for us gifts of eternal salvation” (The Documents of Vatican II, p. 91).

Not a single verse of the Bible assigns a saving or interceding role to Mary.

Jesus said about His sheep: “I give them eternal life and they shall never perish” (Jn. 10:28).

He “is able, now and always, to save those who come to God through him because he lives forever to plead with God for them” (Heb. 7:25).

He has the power to “keep [us] from stumbling and to present [us] before his glorious presence without fault.” (Jude 1:24)

Why would the Bible emphatically declare that “there is no salvation through anyone else” and no “other name under heaven given to the human race” if Mary also dispenses salvation as Rome says? (Acts 4:12)

Both the Bible and Catholicism do not agree.

Jesus’ intercession is based on His Mediatorship. If Mary is also interceding for mankind, it means Jesus’ mediation is grossly insufficient. But God came down as Man to graciously establish His covenant with us.

Jesus, as the “mediator of the new covenant” (Heb. 9:15) intervenes between God and man. He represents God before mankind and represents mankind before God.

As the God-Man, He has “given us a ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). This ultimately disqualifies Mary or anyone else.

Jesus came to earth to save sinners. He kept inviting them “Come to Me” – not to Mary or a church for salvation (Mt. 11:28). At no point do we find a sinner being afraid to go to Jesus asking Mary to approach Him on his/her behalf.

We find examples of Nicodemus, Zaccheus, the woman at Bethany, the penitent thief on the cross and many others who came to Christ. They all approached Him directly without going through Mary.

He showed them love and care more than Mary ever did, so, to suggest that He has lost that superior and divine love and mercy for sinners, that we are now to go to Him through Mary is utterly blasphemous. It denies a central truth: “there is one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

The sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice

“Each time the Mass is offered, the Sacrifice of Christ is repeated. A new sacrifice is not offered, but by divine power, one and the same sacrifice is repeated … In the Mass, Christ continues to offer Himself to the Father as He did on the Cross.” (The New Saint Joseph Catechism, #2, 171)

But the Bible clearly teaches that Christ’s sacrifice must not (and cannot) be repeated.

He “does not need to offer sacrifices every day” (Heb. 7:27) because He “was offered in sacrifice once to take away the sins of many.” (Heb. 9:28)

The offering of His body was “made once and for all” (10:10) and “By the virtue of that one single offering he has achieved the eternal perfection of all who are sanctified” (10:14).

Why would God persistently tell us Jesus’ one sacrifice is sufficient if it needs to be repeated?

After presenting these facts to a Catholic guy years ago, he paused briefly, then said “The original Greek couldn’t have said these. The English Bibles have been distorted!” When I asked him to prove this, he couldn’t. That was a lame excuse.

Jesus said “It is finished” (Jn. 19:30). The Greek word there is tetelestai which literally means “completely complete.” Jesus has offered a perfect and complete sacrifice to God by His infinite power.

To deny this is a blasphemous reduction of Jesus into a perpetual sacrificial victim in the hands of men.

The Sufficiency of His blood

From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners … [by] the prayers and good works of holy people … the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed…” (Vatican II, Vol. 1, 65)

On the contrary, redemption (or salvation) was accomplished by Christ in His sacrifice upon the cross and is received by faith: “Christ entered once and for all into the Most Holy Place … [with] his own blood and obtained eternal salvation for us” (Heb. 9:12).

None of man’s efforts can add to it.

“For by the blood of Christ we are set free, that is, our sins are forgiven” (Eph. 1:7). There is no way our own good works can cleanse our sins or redeem us.

The penalty of sin is infinite and only God could pay it. To reject this one-way redemption provided by the blood of Christ is to remain in sin and eternal condemnation.

Romans 5:9 says “By his blood we are now put right with God…” The present tense used means that once a person repents and believes the Gospel, he is justified and receives eternal life that moment. He doesn’t have to merit it with good works, sacraments or rites.

“The gift of God is eternal life through Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). We don’t work for this gift of salvation, we only receive it by faith in Christ.

Salvation is received here and now and Jesus saves completely, He doesn’t save by half or instalmentally (see Jn. 3:16, 1Cor. 1:21, 2Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:5).

It matters not how much lip service Catholicism pays to solo Christo, its doctrines explicitly deny it, and a truth-seeking Catholic has a choice to make: to take sides against Jesus, the Bible and the Holy Spirit in order to follow a religion or  humble himself/herself and agree with God’s truth and consequently reject the lies of men.

But one thing is clear: every false religion tries to take the glory away from Christ and diminish His work and place it on a human figure, false god or religious organization.

The Biblical vs the Watchtower Jesus 2

The second conclusion was poorly worded. Jesus was already in the form of God and equal to Him, but He laid aside some privileges of Deity and took on man’s nature. He “made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:9). Dr. A. T. Robertson, explains:

“Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. Of what did Christ empty Himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God … Undoubtedly, Christ gave up his environment of glory.” (Word Pictures in the NT, 1932, 4:444-5)

Greek scholar, Marvin Vincent also stated:

“As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God was identified with the being, nature and personality of God… Christ, being, before His incarnation, in the form of God, did not regard His divine equality as a prize which was to be grasped at and retained at all hazards, but, on the contrary, laid aside the form of God, and took upon Himself the nature of man. The emphasis of this passage is upon Christ’s humiliation” (Word Studies in the New Testament, vol 3, 431-432)

At this point, the booklet dives into semantics concerning the verb “grasped” (Gr: harpagmos) used in Phil. 2:6, without informing the reader that in Greek language, this verb has both the active and passive form which in either use still conveys the same truth – that Jesus is equal with God – He only temporarily emptied Himself.

New Testament scholar, Ralph Martin, (who was deceitfully quoted on the same page) wrote:

“In his pre-existent state, Christ already had as his possession the unique dignity of his place within the Godhead. It was a vantage point from which he might have exploited his position and by an assertion of his right, have seized the glory and honour … [but] He considered the appropriation of divine honour in this way a temptation to be resisted and chose rather to be proclaimed as equal with God as the ‘Lord’ by the acceptance of his destiny as the incarnate and humiliated one” (The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, pp. 416-423).

It’s in this context that vs. 5 says our “attitude should be the same as Christ”in humility.

Verse 10 also says “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.” This proves that Jesus is equal to God for in the Old Testament, God says: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth … That unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” (Isa. 45:22-23).

4. “I Am” (John 5:58)

In an attempt to distance this verse from Exodus 3:14, they wrote: “the phrase ‘I AM’ is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised” (p. 26).

This title means more than that, it conveys eternality. To claim the expression at John 8:58 is different from the one at Exodus 3:14 doesn’t even make any sense. It fails to answer the question why the Jews attempted to stone Jesus when He said this (v. 59).

A Jewish Christian, Alfred Edersheim noted that:

“He had spoken of Abraham seeing His day; they took if of His seeing Abraham’s day, and challenged its possibility. Whether or not they intended to elicit an avowel of His claim to eternal duration, and hence Divinity, it was not time any longer to forbear the full statement, and, with Divine emphasis, He spake the words which could not be mistaken: ‘Verily, Verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM.” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2: 8)

The Greek word for “I Am” is ego eimi. A Greek scholar stated that “ego eimi as a self-designation of Jesus in Jn. 5:58 (cf. 8:24; 13:19) stands in contrast to the genesthai applied to Abraham. Jesus thus claimed eternity. As he is equal to the Father (5:18ff), what is ascribed to the Father is ascribed to him too (cf. Is. 43:10 LXX). The context and the ego formulation are both Jewish” (Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1971, 207)

The Commentary on the Whole Bible (Jamieson et al., 1961, p 1074) notes:

“The words rendered ‘was’ and ‘am’ are quite different. The one clause means, ‘Abraham was brought into being’; the other, ‘I exist.’ The statement therefore is not that Christ came into existence before Abraham did (as Arians affirm is the meaning), but that He never came into being at all, but existed before Abraham had a being; in other words, existed before creation, or eternally (as ch. 1:1).”

In Isaiah 48:12 God addresses Himself as “I AM He” just the same way Jesus said to the soldiers: “I Am He” [ego eimi] and they fell to the ground in adoration (Jn. 18:4-6).

Note: He didn’t say “I was.” In Revelation 1:17 Jesus also calls Himself “the first and the last” – the very title of Yahweh or Jehovah in that Isa. 48:12: “I am He; I am the first, I am also the last.”

Jesus also identifies Himself as the One “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8). His eternality and deity is well-spelled out and it destroys the blasphemous lie that Jesus was “God’s created firstborn.”

5. “The Word Was God” (John 1:1)

Pg. 27: “Even the King James Version says, ‘The Word was with God.’ Someone who is ‘with’ another person cannot be the same as that other person.”

This is a straw man argument. What is being attacked here is a heresy called Sabellianism (or Modalism) which teaches that God is the same person as Jesus and the Holy Spirit. That is not what the Trinity doctrine says, and no one who really understands the Trinity doctrine believes this.

In their New World translation, the last part of John. 1:1 has been distorted to say: “and the word was a god” making Jesus out as a god beside God. In the booklet, 8 obscure Bible translations which agree with their rendering of John 1:1 were quoted as support. But the Society didn’t inform their readers that:

(a) One of these versions, the New Testament in an Improved Version, was translated by Unitarians. The Watchtower (Sept 15, 1962, 554) wrote an article which attacked Unitarianism for their heresies, yet they appeal to their translation as legitimate.

(b) The Emphatic Diaglott (1864) was translated by Benjamin Wilson, a Christadelphian. An article in Awake! (Nov 8, 1944, 26) exposed the errors of Christadelphians, but they still appeal to their “bible” to reject the Deity of Christ.

(c) The New Testament (1958) was translated by Johannes Greber, an occult Spiritist, who admitted spirits helped him in his translation. An article in the Watchtower (Feb 15, 1965) exposed this spiritist’s occult practices, yet they cite his “bible” translation favourably. This tells a lot about the Watchtower publishers. They lack intellectual integrity.

Their quote from the Journal of Biblical Literature (1973, 92:85, ed. Joseph Fitzmyer) in the same page is another proof of their lack of scholarly dignity, as I’ve shown several times before. The booklet omitted the parts in bold, which opposes their thesis:

Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John’s thought … The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [theos] cannot be regarded as definite.”

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was ‘divine,’ ‘godlike,’ ‘a god,’ but not Almighty God…the Word was with God, he could not be God but was ‘a god,’ or ‘divine’.” (Ibid)

On the contrary, John 1:1 clearly teaches that the Word in its essential nature is God. John didn’t call the Word “a divine one” which would fall in line with Greek polytheism. The term “theos” used in the verse refers to God, not “a god.” It’s also used for God the Father in John 17:3 (“the only true God”) and for Jesus in John 1:18 and 20:28.

Apostle John didn’t use the adjective “theois” which would have meant a god-like one or a divine nature. There is no way a first century Jew would apply the word “theos” to a creature. Several Greek scholars agree.

B. B. Warfield wrote:

“From all eternity the Word has been with God as a fellow: He who in the beginning already ‘was,’ ‘was’ also in communion with God. Though He was thus in some sense a second along with God, He was nevertheless not a separate being from God” (The Person and Work of Christ: Philadelphia, 1950, 53).

Dr. A. T. Robertson:

“And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language, John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having an article.” (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934, 767)

Dana H. and Julius Mantey stated:

“John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the Word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples…As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: 1950, 148-9).

Dr. Kenneth Wuest explained:

“The Word was God. Here the word ‘God’ is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality of character. Thus, John teaches here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes.” (Studies in the Greek New Testament, 3:52)

Jesus was not a god beside God as the Watchtower Society teaches. That is henotheism or polytheism. God Himself has said: “I am He and there is no god with me” (Dt. 32:39).

JWs will have to choose: either to follow the inspired Word of God or their uninspired Watchtower organization.