Jehovah's Witnesses

The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Resurrection of Jesus

2008-10-04T00:38:00.000-07:00

The Jehovah's Witnesses and the
Resurrection of Jesus

The Watchtower organization says that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body he died in (You Can Live Forever on Paradise Earth, p. 143-44). Instead, it says that He rose as a spirit creature and that the material body of Jesus was taken away by God the Father. Therefore, they deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Is this important? Most definitely!
1 Cor. 15:14 says, "If Jesus is not raised, then our faith is in vain." In other words, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a waste of time and we are then still dead in our sins. It is obvious that the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus is a vital and essential element of Christianity. But what of the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Are they accurate in their assessment of Jesus’ resurrection in denying the bodily resurrection but affirming a "spiritual" resurrection? The answer is a definite, "No."
It is obvious from Jesus' own words in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead:

"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." ²⁰The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" ²¹But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 2:19-21 is a clear prophecy of Christ. Note that He said He would raise up "this temple." John the apostle clarifies for us that "this temple" was actually Jesus physical body. Therefore, Jesus' physical body was raised from the dead. Very simple. However, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus' own words here.
In order to help you see the error of the Watchtower position and aid you in refuting their arguments, I've compiled the following list of arguments used by the Jehovah's Witnesses to support their position.

1. They use 1 Pet. 3:18 where it says that Christ was "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" as an attempt to show that Jesus was not raised physically, but as a kind of spirit creature.
Their use of the scripture to support their position is incorrect because this verse does not say that He was raised a spirit creature. It says that He was "made alive in the spirit." What does that mean? Quite simply, it means that Jesus was raised in an imperishable body. This is what 1 Cor. 15:35-45 says when it refers to the body as being sown perishable, but raised imperishable; sown in dishonor and raised in glory; sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, etc. Jesus was the "Last Adam" a life giving spirit. Paul is typifying the resurrection body. In this passage Paul is talking about the resurrection of all people. All Christians will be raised in physical bodies. It is said the same of Jesus.

2. The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:44-50). Therefore, Jesus’ physical body could not be raised lest it contradict this verse.
What the Jehovah's Witnesses miss is that after His resurrection Jesus said, "Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39). You must note that Jesus did not say, "flesh and blood." He said, "flesh and bones." This is because Jesus’ blood was shed on the cross. The life is in the blood and it is the blood that cleanses from sin: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11). See also, Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23; and John 6:53-54. Jesus was pointing out that He was different. He had a body, but not a body of flesh and blood. It was flesh and bones.

3. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus manifested different physical forms in order to convince the disciples that He had been raised.
This is faulty for several reasons. First, it would mean that Jesus was tricking His disciples into believing that His body had been raised when it hadn’t. Second, it disregards the clear teaching of Jesus Himself who said His very body would be raised. He said in John 2:19-21, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." ²⁰Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" ²¹But He was speaking of the temple of His body." Jesus said that His body would be raised. The Jehovah’s Witnesses clearly deny Jesus’ very words. Fourth, 1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." Jesus is said to be a man -- in present tense language. If He was not raised physically, then how could he be a man? He could not be.

4. Jesus manifested different bodies after the resurrection, the same way the angels took human form in the Old Testament in order to show the disciples that He had been raised.
Again, this contradicts what Jesus said in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead. . . physically. Also, Jesus is not an angel contrary to what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Jesus was God in flesh (John 8:58; John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8).

The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body He died in. This is a dangerous doctrine that contradicts the Bible and condemns those who believe it to eternal destruction because it is denying His physical resurrection which is the proof that He conquered death. The Jehovah's Witnesses need to keep Jesus’ own words in mind when He said, "Destroy this temple and in three days, I will raise it up" (John 2:19). Since He was speaking of His body says John in verse 21, then it must be true; Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in. Also, at His ascension people watched Him rise to be with the Father. They saw His body ascend. That is why it can be said that Jesus, the man, is the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). It isn’t an angel or a spirit creature that is the mediator. It is Jesus the man.

Why did Jesus cry out,"My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"

2008-10-04T00:29:00.001-07:00

Why did Jesus cry out,"My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"

In Matthew 27:45-46, it says, "Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. ⁴⁶And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" If Jesus is God, why would He say this?
First of all, Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 which begins with, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?". Jesus quoted this Psalm in order to draw attention to it and the fact that He was fulfilling it there on the cross. Consider verses 11-18 in Psalm 22:

Be not far from me, for trouble is near; For there is none to help.¹² Many bulls have surrounded me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me. ¹³ They open wide their mouth at me, As a ravening and a roaring lion. ¹⁴ I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me. ¹⁵ My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And Thou dost lay me in the dust of death. ¹⁶ For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. ¹⁷ I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; ¹⁸ They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.

The term 'dogs' was used by the Jews to refer to Gentiles (cf. Matt. 15:21-28). His heart has melted within Him (v. 14). During the crucifixion process, the blood loss causes the heart to beat harder and harder and become extremely fatigued. Dehydration occurs (v. 15). Verses 16b-18 speak of piercing His hands and feet and dividing his clothing by casting lots. This is exactly what happen as described in Matt. 27:35.
Psalm 22 was written about 600 years before Christ was born. At that time, crucifixion had not yet been invented. Actually, the Phoenician's developed it and Rome borrowed the agonizing means of execution from them. So, when Rome ruled over Israel, it became the Roman means of capital punishment imposed upon the Jews whose biblical means of execution was stoning. Nevertheless, Jesus is pointing to the scriptures to substantiate His messianic mission.

A further comment

2 Cor. 5:21 says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." It is possible that at some moment on the cross, when Jesus became sin on our behalf, that God the Father, in a sense, turned His back upon the Son. It says in Hab. 1:13 that God is too pure to look upon evil. Therefore, it is possible that when Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), that the Father, spiritually, turned away. At that time, the Son may have cried out.
One thing is for sure. We have no capacity to appreciate the utterly horrific experience of having the sins of the world put upon the Lord Jesus as He hung, in excruciating pain, from that cross. The physical pain was immense. The spiritual one must have been even greater.
That shows us clearly how much God loves us.

____________________

note: All Bible quotes are from the NASB Bible.

What do the Jehovah's Witnesses Teach?

2008-10-04T00:29:00.000-07:00

What do the Jehovah's Witnesses Teach?

There is one God in one person, Make Sure of All Things, p 188.
There is no Trinity, Let God be True, p. 100-101; Make Sure of All Things, p.386.
The Holy Spirit is a force, not alive, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp.
406-407.
The Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, The Watchtower, June 1, 1952,
p. 24.
Jehovah's first creation was his 'only-begotten Son'. . . was used by Jehovah in
creating all other things", Aid to Bible Understanding, pp. 390-391.
Jesus was Michael the archangel who became a man, The Watchtower, May 15,
1963, p. 307; The New World, 284.
Jesus was only a perfect man, not God in flesh, Reasoning from the Scriptures,
1985, pp. 306.
Jesus did not rise from the dead in his physical body, Awake! July 22, 1973, p. 4.
Jesus was raised "not a human creature, but a spirit." Let God be True, p. 276.
Jesus was born again, The Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1954, p. 682.
Jesus did not die on a cross but on a stake, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985,
pp. 89-90.
Jesus began his invisible rule over the earth in 1914, The Truth Shall Make You Free,
p. 300.
Jesus' ransom sacrifice did not include Adam, Let God be True, p. 119.
Their church is the self-proclaimed prophet of God, The Watchtower, April 1,
1972, p. 197.
They claim to be the only channel of God's truth, The Watchtower, Feb. 15,
1981, p. 19.
Only their church members will be saved, The Watchtower, Feb, 15, 1979, p. 30.
Good works are necessary for salvation, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1,
pp. 150, 152.
The soul ceases to exist after death, Let God be True, p. 59, 60, 67.
There is no hell of fire where the wicked are punished, Let God be True, p. 79, 80.
Only 144,000 Jehovah's Witness go to heaven, Reasoning from the Scriptures,
1985, pp. 166-167, 361; Let God be True, p. 121.
Only the 144,000 Jehovah's Witness are born again. Reasoning from the
Scriptures, 1985, p. 76.; Watchtower 11/15/54, p. 681.
Only the 144,000 may take communion,
Blood transfusions are a sin, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 72-73.
The Cross is a pagan symbol and should not be used, Reasoning from the
Scriptures, 1985, pp. 90-92.
Salvation is by faith and what you do, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp.
150,152.
It is possible to lose your salvation, Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp.
358-359.
The universe is billions of years old, Your will Be Done on Earth, p. 43.
Each of the 6 creative days of God in Genesis 1, was 7000 years long.
Therefore, Man was created toward the end of 42,000 years of earth's
preparation, Let God be True, p. 168.
They also refuse to vote, salute the flag, sing the "Star Spangled Banner," or
celebrate Christmas or birthdays. They are not allowed to serve in the armed
forces.
Satan was entrusted with the obligation and charged with the duty of
overseeing the creation of the earth, Children, p 55

The True Jesus

2008-10-04T00:28:00.000-07:00

The True Jesus

There is a simple way to see if someone has the true Jesus or not. By true Jesus, I mean the one of the Bible, not the one of Mormonism who is the brother of the devil, nor the Jehovah's Witness Jesus who is Michael the Archangel, and certainly not the one of the New Age Movement who is simply a man in tune with the divine consciousness.

The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2).
The Jesus of the Bible is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6)
The Jesus of the Bible called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8).

In cult theologies, Jesus is a creation in one form or another (this is why the Jehovah's Witnesses add the word ‘other' four times to Col. 1:16-17). Therefore, He is not to be prayed to, worshiped, or called God.
If you are a Christian then you will be able to pray to Jesus, not just through. You will be able to worship Jesus equally with the Father. And you will be able to call Jesus your Lord and God. A cultist cannot do this. A cultist has a false Jesus, and, therefore, a false hope of salvation.

The following is an expansion of the above points

If you put your faith in a Jesus that is not true, then your faith is useless. The power of faith does not rest in the act of believing, but in its object; the greatest faith in someone false is the same as no faith at all. Sincerity and false messiahs do not bridge the chasm of sin between God and man, only the Jesus of the Bible does that. Who then, is the true Jesus?
Jesus said that He was the only One who reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27 and Luke 10:22): "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (NIV).
So, to know the true Father you must first know the true Jesus. The question is, how do you recognize the true Jesus? Simple, look in the Bible.
If you were to say, "Father receive my spirit," who would you be praying to? The Father, right?
If you were to say, "Jesus receive my spirit," who would you be praying to? Jesus.
In Acts 7:59, Stephen, while full of the Holy Spirit (v. 55), prayed to Jesus:

And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (See also Acts 9:14; Rom. 10:13.)

(In Mormonism, in 3 Nephi 19:18 Jesus is prayed to and called Lord and God. This is useful to mention to a Mormon when necessary.)

Stephen prayed to Jesus, not just through Him. If it is acceptable for him then it should be alright for you. The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to. I pray to Jesus. Do you? If yes, good. If not, why?
But you might say, "Jesus said to pray to the Father." I do. But I also pray to Jesus as Stephen did. If the church is only to pray to the Father then why did Stephen, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, address Jesus in His prayer? Was he wrong? See also 1 Cor. 1:1-2 with Psalm 116:4 where calling upon the name of the Lord is prayer and prayer is addressed to Jesus by the Corinthian church.

Jesus was also worshipped. The verses are:

And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's son! (Matt. 14:33).
And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him (Matt. 28:9).
See also Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6.

The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to and worshiped. Do you do what Jesus' disciples did? Do you pray to and worship the true Jesus?
Since it is against Mormon and Jehovah's Witness theologies to pray to Jesus but only through if you do worship Jesus, how can you do that without praying to Him? And, do you honor Him equally with the Father as Jesus said to do in John 5:23? If you do not, then why not?
There is just one more issue to address. Do you call Jesus your Lord and God?
After Jesus' resurrection He showed Himself to many people. One of them was Thomas. John 20:28:

Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], "My Lord and my God!" The literal Greek says, "The Lord of me and the God of me."

(In Mormonism, in 3 Nephi 19:18 Jesus is prayed to and called Lord and God. This is useful to mention to a Mormon when necessary.)

"My God!" is a pagan expression used today. Two points can be made from this. First, do you agree that Thomas a devout Jew was swearing, like a pagan of today? Second, there is no biblical account of swear words. Peter did swear in Mark 14:71 by swearing he did not know Jesus. To say Thomas was swearing, or merely exclaiming profound surprise has no evidence.

God calls Jesus God in Heb. 1:8:

But of the Son He [the Father] says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever..."

Unfortunately, in the Jehovah's Witness Bible in Heb. 1:8 you'll see that it says, "God is your throne, forever and ever." This, technically speaking, is a legitimate translation. The reason this is so lies in the nature of the Greek language and the fact that the form of the word "God" and "Throne" both end in a noun construction that is interchangeable, therefore making the NWT translation legitimate. It is unfortunate that the Watchtower has chosen to do this. Nevertheless, if you'd like to read more about this, then go to The Jehovah's Witnesses and Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6.

Conclusion:

The Jesus of the Bible is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2), worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6), and called Lord and God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8). If I have the wrong Jesus, and therefore I serve the wrong God, then why do I pray to Jesus, worship Him, and call Him my Lord and God as the Scriptures teach? But, if you have the true Jesus, why is it you don't do those things? Why does JW theology not agree with the scriptures?
I think the answer is simple. The Jesus of the cults is not the true Jesus. Therefore, they are wrong.

The New World Translation and "Proskuneo" (worship)

2008-10-04T00:27:00.002-07:00

The New World Translation and "Proskuneo" (worship)

The chart below is a list of every occurrence of the Greek word "proskuneo" that I could find in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (1969). This work was produced by the New World Translation Bible committee in accordance with the Watchtower organization. An interlinear is a word for word translation of the Greek text. Included in this Watchtower interlinear is the text of the New World Translation Bible placed in a column on each page so the reader can see exactly how the NWT renders each occurrence of the verb "proskuneo."
The word "proskuneo" means "to kiss the hand, bow down before, show obeisance, to worship." Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God, they maintain that He is not to be worshipped. So, how does the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society translate the word "proskuneo" in their Greek New Testament in reference to Jesus and other objects of adoration? The NWT never translates the word into "worship" when it references Jesus. It does, however, render the word as "worship" in regards to the devil, the dragon, the beast, the image, demons, idols, and an angel. Of course, they correctly translate it as "worship" when it deals with God.
Is the New World Translation biased against worshipping Jesus? It would surely seem so, especially since the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, etc., all translate the word as "worship" in reference to Jesus.
What is curious is to note that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society used to teach that worshipping Jesus was acceptable:

"The fact that our Lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he really worshiped, or is the translation faulty? Yes we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so. While he was not the God, Jehovah, he was a God. The word ‘God’ signifies a ‘mighty one,’ and our Lord was indeed a mighty one. So it is stated in the first two verses of the gospel of John. It was proper for our Lord to receive worship in view of his having been the only begotten of the Father. . ." (The Watchtower, July 15, 1898, p. 216.)

It seems that as the Watchtower theology changed, they needed a Bible consistent with those changes; hence, the New World Translation. Following is a chart listing every appearance of the word "proskuneo" in the New World Translation. Let's see if the bias of the Watchtower organization is obvious.
The word "proskuneo" occurs 55 times in the Watchtower Kingdome Interlinear. Of those 55, 15 are in reference to Jesus with 40 used of others. 27% of the usage is of Jesus and not a single reference is translated as "worship" even though in reference to the devil, demons, idols, etc., they do translate it as worship. If this doesn't demonstrate their bias, then what does?

Verse	Jesus	God	Demons	dragon, beast, image	Devil	Generic	Idols	Peter	angel
Matt. 2:2	obeisance
Matt. 2:8	obeisance
Matt. 2:11	obeisance
Matt. 4:9					worship
Matt. 4:10		worship
Matt. 8:2	obeisance
Matt. 9:18	obeisance
Matt. 14:33	obeisance
Matt. 15:25	obeisance
Matt. 18:26						obeisance
Matt. 20:20	obeisance
Matt. 28:9	obeisance
Matt. 28:17	obeisance
Mark 5:6	obeisance
Mark 15:19	obeisance
Luke 4:7					worship
Luke 4:8		worship
Luke 24:52	obeisance
Verse	Jesus	God	Demons	dragon, beast, image	Devil	Generic	Idols	Peter	angel
John 4:20		worship
John 4:21		worship
John 4:22		worship
John 4:23		worship
John 4:23		worship
John 4:24		worship
John 9:38	obeisance
John 12:20						worship
Acts 7:43							worship
Acts 8:27						worship
Acts 10:25								obeisance
Acts 24:11						worship
1 Cor. 14:25		worship
Heb. 1:6	obeisance
Heb. 11:21		worship
Verse	Jesus	God	Demons	dragon, beast, image	Devil	Generic	Idols	Peter	angel
Rev. 3:9						obeisance
Rev. 4:10		worship
Rev. 5:14		worship
Rev. 7:11		worship
Rev. 9:20			worship
Rev. 11:1						worship
Rev. 11:16		worship
Rev. 13:4				worship
Rev. 13:8				worship
Rev. 13:12				worship
Rev. 13:15				worship
Rev. 14:7		worship
Rev. 14:9				worship
Rev. 14:11				worship
Rev. 15:4		worship
Rev. 16:2				worship
Rev. 19:4		worship
Rev. 19:10		worship
Rev. 19:20				worship
Rev. 20:4				worship
Rev. 22:8									worship
Rev. 22:9		worship

As you can see, the NWT is very bias in how it translates the word "proskuneo." Whenever it is in reference to Jesus, they absolutely will not let it be translated as worship. Why? Because they erringly deny that Jesus is God in flesh and their Bible reflects their bias. This is not how proper theology is done.
The Watchtower Organization has changed the Bible to suit its needs.

The Lord's Supper and the 144,000 Anointed Class of Jehovah's Witnesses.

2008-10-04T00:27:00.001-07:00

The Lord's Supper and the 144,000 Anointed Class of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The Jehovah's Witness organization teaches that not all members of their group can take communion. Only the 144,000 members called the "anointed class" have the right to take Communion and they are the only ones who go to heaven (Watchtower 2/15/85, page 13). In fact, the 144,000 "anointed class" within the Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones who are "born again."

"This "little flock" of 144,000 Kingdom heirs, then, are those ones from among mankind who are "born again." Watchtower 11/15/54, p. 681. Watchtower CD.

The Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate the communion supper only once a year, (Watchtower CD, Watchtower 4/1/65, p. 199.) In their annual communion service, the congregations gather in their various kingdom halls. This is done on the 14th of Nissan, the Passover date on the Jewish calendar, which usually falls in March or April of each year in the Gregorian calendar. During the service, the cup is passed from Jehovah's Witness to Jehovah's Witness. None of them partake -- except the very few who are of the 144,000.
In John 6:53-54, Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. ⁵⁴“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day," (NASB).
I am not here going to discuss the nature of the communion and compare Catholic and Protestant views of the elements; rather, the issue is that Jesus said to the Jews that they must take of the communion, which He later instituted in Matt. 26:26-28, and that if they did not partake, then they had no life in them, v. 6:53.
According to the Watchtower, the "life" spoken of in 6:53 is everlasting life.

"On that occasion Jesus was not speaking to those circumcised Israelites about "everlasting life" as human creatures on a Paradise earth under his millennial kingdom. Rather, he was speaking about the very same opportunity that he was setting before the apostle Peter and his fellow apostles by means of the "sayings of everlasting life." It was the opportunity to gain inherent life with the Christ in the heavens, "life in yourselves." (John 6:53) By reigning with him in heaven they could pass on to mankind the life-giving benefits of his sacrifice. Watchtower, 3/1/78, p. 10.

According to Jehovah's Witness theology, some Witnesses will be raised to "immortal life" and others to "everlasting life." Immortal life is only for the 144,000 that go to be with the Lord in heaven. They do not have resurrected bodies, but have "spirit bodies." Everlasting life is for those on Paradise earth and consists of a resurrected body that must be maintained through eating, sleeping, etc.
As we see in the quote above, according to the Watchtower, the life that Jesus was speaking of was "everlasting life"; that is, life in heaven for the 144,000. Therefore, the Witnesses teach that the communion supper is instituted only for the 144,000 Jews, not for all Witnesses.
Since Jesus bought the church with His blood (Acts 20:28), and His blood is the blood of the covenant for the church (1 Cor. 11:25), then communion is supposed to be for all Christians, not just 144,000 elite Jehovah's Witnesses.

What does the Bible say?

The Communion supper is for the body of Christ, for the believers. The bread and the wine represent the body and the blood of Christ that was sacrificed for the believer so the believer could have redemption of his sins. Therefore, Communion is only for those people who have trusted in Christ's sacrifice. Communion is not for those who are not covered by Christ's sacrifice. This is significant since the great majority of the Witnesses do not take communion.
Paul the apostle said that the bread is a sharing in the body of Christ, that there is only one body of Christ (the church) of which we all partake. Within the Christian Church, there is no limitation on the who takes the Lord's supper.

"Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? ¹⁷Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. ¹⁸Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?" (1 Cor. 10:16-18, NASB).
for"And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight," (Acts 20:7, NASB).

There is no mention of limiting communion to anyone except that they examine themselves and rightly discern that the elements represent Christ's sacrifice, not a mere meal to satisfy hunger.

"But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. ²⁹For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly," (1 Cor. 11:28-29, NASB).

No place in the Bible is communion restricted to only the 144,000, as the Witnesses teach. This is a fabrication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. The fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not take communion is a demonstration that they are not in the body of Christ and do not have a covenant relationship with Christ. The Lord's Supper is meant for the body of believers in the true and living God who have been redeemed by the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord's Supper is not for those who are outside the camp of Christ. Since the great majority of the Jehovah's Witnesses do not take communion, this is a testimony against them.

The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 14:28

2008-10-04T00:26:00.000-07:00

The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 14:28

"You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I'" (John 14:28).

Jesus said the Father was greater than He not because Jesus is not God, but because Jesus was also a man and as a man he was in a lower position. He was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." (Heb. 2:9). Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ."
Jesus has two natures. Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man. Jesus is both God and man. As a man, he was in a lesser position than the Father. He had added to Himself human nature (Col. 2:9). He became a man to die for people.
A comparison can be found in the marriage relationship. Biblically, a husband is greater in position and authority than his wife. But, he is no different in nature and he is not better than she. They share the same nature, being human, and they work together by love.
So, Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was simply acknowledging that He was also a man and as a man, he was subject to the laws of God so that He might redeem those who were under the law; namely, sinners (Gal. 4:4-5).

For further reading please see the two natures of Jesus.

SCRIPTURES QUOTED:

Phil. 2:5-8, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,"

Gal. 4:4-5, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."

Heb. 2:9, "But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone."

The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 8:58

2008-10-04T00:25:00.001-07:00

The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 8:58

"Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence,
I have been" (New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses).

The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God. So, when it comes to translating and interpreting Bible verses that show the deity of Jesus, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society will go to great lengths to support their false presupposition. Sometimes they will even translate verses in a way that is consistent with their belief system. In the Jehovah's Witness Bible, known as the New World Translation (NWT), John 8:58 is a verse that they have translated in a manner deliberately consistent with their theology. Following is the verse in context from the NASB.

In John 8:56-59 says, "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' ⁵⁷The Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' ⁵⁸Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' ⁵⁹Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." (All Bible quotes are from the NASB)

The issue at hand is the phrase "I am" in verse 58. The Jehovah's Witnesses have "translated" the Greek present tense ("I am") into the English perfect tense ("I have been") which is more consistent with their theological position that Jesus is not God in flesh. In the Greek, the words are "ego eimi." Literally, this is "I am." "Ego eimi" is the present active indicative first person singular (I am), not the perfect active indicative first person singular (I have been). It would seem that the natural and correct translation into the English is "I am." But the NWT does not translate this into the present tense. Why? I am firmly convinced it is because translating John 8:58 as "I am" would be too close to God identifying Himself as the "I am" in Exodus 3:14. Therefore, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has opted for a different rendering.

"And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you,’" (Exodus 3:14).

But the issue is not settled so easily. Does the Bible ever legitimately translate the present tense 'ego eimi' into the English perfect tense "I have been"? Yes it does. In John 14:8-9 it says, "Philip said to Him, 'Lord show us the Father, and it is enough for us.' ⁹Jesus said to him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father?'" Where Jesus says, "I have been" is in the Greek present tense, 'ego eimi'. Literally, again, this is "I am." Here we have an example of the Greek present tense being translated into the English perfect tense. This is the very same thing the Watchtower organization claims is legitimate in John 8:58. Why is this translated into "I have been?" Quite simply because if we did not do this, then the English would say, "I am with you so long...." That is awkward in the English, so translators translate it as "Have I been so long with you...." It is legitimate to do this in some instances where it is warranted in order to make the English more readable and clear. But is it necessary to do this in John 8:58? I don't believe so -- unless your underlying presupposition is that Jesus is not God in flesh.
Additionally, to make the issue even more complicated, there are some English Bible translations that render John 8:58 other than "I AM." For example, the Living Bible (1973, a paraphrase) says, "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The New Living Translations says, "I existed." The Bible in Worldwide English translates it as "I already was." The 1960, 1973 NASB had a marginal rendering of "I have been." Because of this, the Jehovah's Witness will claim the NWT is, therefore, legitimate since other Bibles have translations other than "I AM" in John 8:58. But from what I have seen of these other translations, they are intended to be looser renderings of the Greek and therefore take more liberties in translation. The NASB, for example, is intended to be as literal as possible as does the KJV which both translate the verse as "I AM." The 1973 NASB marginal quote above is just that, marginal and is not what they rendered into the English text. The preferred translation is "I am." Take Young's Literal Translation as another example. In John 8:58 it states, ". . . Before Abraham's coming -- I am." In fact, other translations render it as:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am," (ASV).
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," (KJV).
“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," (NASB).
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!" (NIV).
“Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM," (NKJV).
“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am," (RSV).
"Truly, truly, before Abraham was, I am," (NLT).
"Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am," (RSV)
"Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am!" (KJ21).
"Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am,' (YLT).
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," (Darby).
"Antes que Abraham fuese, yo soy," (Spanish) - uses "yo soy" which is "I am."
"En vérité, en vérité, je vous le dis, avant qu'Abraham fût, je suis," (French) "je suis" which is "I am."

Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will cite translations that have renderings other than the plain "I am" for John 8:58 and in so doing claim legitimacy. Unfortunately, since different translations do have different renderings, the debate will continue between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian apologists until the Lord Jesus returns.
In the mean time, let's turn to page 467 of the 1969 Greek Interlinear used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:.

The Watchtower's own interlinear translates John 8:58 as "I am" even though in the NWT it renders it as "I have been." In this, they admit that the Greek is indeed, "I am," the present tense. They will not deny this. What they assert is that it should be translated into the English, "I have been." Should it or could it? If it should, then Greek scholars would echo the NWT rendition in the great majority of instances. But they do not. Essentially, the Watchtower organization is saying that all the translations that have "I am" as the rendering are wrong, that the "proper" translation is "I have been." In a footnote at the bottom of page 467 regarding John 8:58 in the NWT is this comment:

"I have been = ego eimi after the a'orist infinitive clause prin' Abraam genesthai and hence properly rendered in the perfect tense. It is not the same as ho ohn', meaning "The Being" or "The I Am") at Exodus 3:14, LXX"

The "LXX" is the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The question is whether or not Jesus was quoting from the LXX or if He was simply translating the Hebrew. Again, Exodus 3:14 says, "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’" The phrase "I AM WHO I AM" is rendered in the Greek LXX as "Ego eimi ho on." Literally, this is "I am the being one." Most Bibles translate the Hebrew from Exodus 3:14 as "I am" -- the present tense as did the Hebrew translators of the LXX. The LXX also has it in the present tense which is what the Greek syntax states. Jesus uses the present tense in John 8:58.
In spite of some of the translations regarding John 8:58, I do not believe the NWT's version of John 8:58 is warranted for three reasons: First, it purports to "transmit his [God] thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible."¹ I do not believe this is the case at all. Rather, I see the Watchtower's bias against Jesus' divinity overtaking this verse and altering it as it has done in other verses such as Heb. 1:8 and Col. 1:15-17. Second, the most literal translations such as the NASB, the NIV, and the KJV do not render this verse as "I have been" but as "I AM." And, third, the context of the verse does not support the JW position.

It isn't the English, but the Greek that upset the Pharisees

"'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' ⁵⁷The Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' ⁵⁸Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' ⁵⁹Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."

The Pharisees didn't speak English. They spoke Hebrew and Greek. In the Greek text, Jesus uses the present tense. It was this Greek present tense (I am) that upset the Pharisees so much, not the perfect tense (I have been).
If Jesus were really saying to the Jews, "I have been," then why would the Pharisees want to kill him (v. 59)? Since blasphemy, or calling yourself God, was punishable by death, isn't this a confirmation that Jesus was saying "I am" and that the Jew's understood what he was saying? Absolutely! That is why the best translation is simply, "I am."²
I also need to mention that in Mark 14:62, where Jesus answered the High Priest who said, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? ⁶²And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. ⁶³Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? ⁶⁴Ye have heard the blasphemy. . ." Jesus responded with "I am" which provoked the authorities and prompted them to seek death. This is particularly revealing when we compare John 10:34 where the Pharisees want to kill Jesus because they said He was making Himself equal to God. The phrase, "I AM" in these contexts would surely imply that.
Undoubtedly, Jesus knew the difference in the Greek between "I am" and "I have been." Jesus did not use the form "I have been" in the Greek, but used the form "I am." It is the Greek, not the English that the Pharisees were upset about.

But the Pharisees were so upset

At this point, many of the Jehovah's Witnesses assert that by the time Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I have been" (NWT), they had already been thoroughly agitated by Jesus and, basically, snapped and tried to kill Him at this final comment. Furthermore, the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus was claiming the divine title of Exodus 3:14 where God said to Moses, "I am that I am." But which do you think would have upset the Pharisees more, saying "Before Abraham was, I am" or Before Abraham was, I have been"? Obviously, the former would be more upsetting and that is exactly the phrase that Jesus used.
If Jesus wanted to avoid any confusion with the Pharisees, why didn't He use one of the past tenses? Certainly he must have known that saying "Before Abraham was, I am" to the Pharisees would cause some problems. And it did. The aorist (I was), the perfect (I have been), and the pluperfect (I had been) all deal with the past, yet Jesus chose to deliberately use the present tense "I am." He used a past tense verb when describing Abraham ("before Abraham was..."), but a present tense verb when describing Himself ("I am"). He deliberately brought attention to the words, "I am." The Pharisees understood this and was indeed the last straw for them.

Conclusion

The Jehovah's Witnesses have spent a great deal of time developing and crafting linguistic arguments to favor their translation of John 8:58. Wading through their arguments dealing with Greek tenses, verb forms, and grammar rules is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is sufficient to mention that the Jehovah's Witnesses have a theological bias against the deity of Christ. Their translation of John 8:58 and their attempts to justify this translation are directly related to their presuppositions against Christ and his deity.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society teaches its members to deny the deity of Christ. From this base, any and all affirmations to Jesus' deity will be undermined in whatever way possible. John 8:58 is just another example of this bias.

________

¹ New World Translation, 1961, page 5.
² I should note that, most probably Jesus spoke to the Pharisees in Aramaic, a Hebrew Dialect. It is possible He spoke to them in Greek. But, since all we have is the NT Greek and no Aramaic writings of the NT, we must work from what the Greek says.

WE = WorldWide English Bible
YLT = Young's Literal Translation
KJ21 = 21st Century King James Version

The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1

2008-10-04T00:25:00.000-07:00

The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was a god." The New World Translation

This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man. Therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the Bible in John 1:1 so that Jesus is not divine in nature. The New World Translation has added the word "a" to the verse so it says, "...and the Word was a god." The correct translation for this verse is "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." This is how it is rendered in the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, etc.
The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will respond that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but a "lesser" kind of God. He is the "mighty God" as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Therefore, they say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God.
The immediate problem with this explanation is that YHWH is also called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 32:18 and Isaiah 10:20. In all three verses, including Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew word for "mighty" (gibbor) is used.

Isaiah 10:20-21, "Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. ²¹A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God."
Jer. 32:18, "who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. the LORD of hosts is His name."

We can see that the Jehovah's Witness explanation is not valid. Both the Son and God are called the Mighty God.
Furthermore, how many actual gods are there in scripture? The obvious answer is that there is only one God in existence. Though there are others who have been falsely called gods (1 Cor. 8:5-6) or even said to be "as God" like Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1), there is only one real God (Gal. 4:8-9; Isaiah 44:6,8). If Jesus is "a god" that was "with God" in the beginning, then is Jesus a true god or a false god?
But, the Jehovah's Witnesses often claim that Jesus is a god in the sense that Moses was called a god. But, Moses was not called a god. Rather, he would be "as God."

"Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and it shall come about that he shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be as God to him, (Exodus 4:16).
"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet,'" (Exodus 7:1).

Why was Moses going to "as God" to Pharaoh? Because Moses was given the authority and power to display powerful miracles that decimated much of Egypt. Was Moses really a god? Being "as God" in regards to power given to perform miracles over Egypt is not the same thing as being called "a god" that was in the beginning with God, (John 1:1).
John was a strict Jew, a monotheist. Does the Jehovah's Witness really think that John would be saying that there was another God besides Jehovah, even if it were Jesus? Being raised a good Jew, the apostle John would never believe that there was more than one God in existence. Yet, he compared the word with God, said the word was God, and that the word became flesh (John 1:1,14).
John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word." Notice that it says "God was the word." This is the actual word for word translation. It is not saying that "a god was the word." That wouldn't make sense. Let me break it down into three statements.

"In beginning was the word..."
(en arche en ho logos)

A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.

"and the word was with the God..."
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)

This same Word was with God.

"and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God."
(kai theos en ho logos)

This same Word was God.

Regarding statement 3 above, the correct English translation is "...and the Word was God," not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, "...the Word was God" is the correct translation, not "God was the Word."¹ But this does not negate the idea that John is speaking of only one God, not two, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus is "a god," or the "mighty god" as was addressed above.
Is there suddenly a new god in the text of John 1:1? It is the same God that is being spoken of in part 2 as in part 3. How do the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that the word had somehow become a god in this context, since there is only one God mentioned? Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. Therefore, is there any place in the Bible where an angel is called "a god," besides Satan being called the god of this world in 2 Cor. 4:3-4?

John 20:28 - "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'"

In the Greek in John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus, "ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou," "The Lord of me, and the God of me." If Jesus was not God, but "a" god, then shouldn't Jesus have corrected Thomas? Shouldn't Jesus have said, "No Thomas, I am not the God. I am a god."? But Jesus did not. To do so would have been ludicrous. Nevertheless, the Jehovah's Witness will say that Thomas was so stunned by Jesus' appearance, that he swore. This is ridiculous because it means that Thomas, a devout man of God, swore in front of Jesus and used the Lord's name in vain in violation of Exodus 20:7. This is hardly the case since we find no New Testament equivalent of a disciple of Christ using God's name in vain.
In conclusion, John 1:1 is best translated without the "a" inserted into the text. "The Word was God" is the best translation. This way, we do not run into the danger of polytheism, with Jesus being "a god." We do not have Thomas the disciples swearing and using God's name in vain. And, we do not have the problem of Jesus being a "mighty god" and yet not the God -- even though God Himself is called the Mighty God (Jeremiah 32:18; Isaiah 10:20).

___________________
1. Chapman, B. (1994). Greek New Testament Insert. (2nd ed., revised.). Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing. Also, Louw, J. P. (1989; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic edition of the 2nd ed.) (Page 592). New York: United Bible societies.

The Jehovah's Witnesses and Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6

2008-10-04T00:23:00.000-07:00

The Jehovah's Witnesses and Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6

"But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness'" The New World Translation.

In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in two legitimate ways:

"God is your throne forever and ever....
and
"Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever..."

But because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God, they choose the first version, otherwise, the Father would be calling Jesus God and that goes against Jehovah's Witness theology. Yet, most Bibles do not translate it the way the New World Translation does. They choose the other way. Why? Two reasons.
First, Heb. 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which says,

"Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom" (All Bible quotes are from the NASB).

In fact, the ASV, KJV, NIV, and NKJV all translated it as "Your throne, O God..." The RSV translates it as "Your divine throne endures for ever and ever," "but this is a highly unlikely translation because it requires understanding the Hebrew noun for "thrown" in construct state, something extremely unusual whenn a noun has a pronomial suffix, as this one does...The KJV, NIV, and NASB all take the verse in its plain, straightforward sense, as do the ancient translations..."¹
When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical requirement for this translation, though it is considered to be the best translation by most translators. In and of itself, this is not conclusive because the context of this verse in Psalm 45 is dealing with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as God. But, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another. They knew something we didn't. In fact, in Ezekiel 28:12-17 is a section that deals with the fall of the devil. Verse 13 says describes how he was in the garden of Eden. Verse 14 says he was the anointed cherub, (v. 15), etc. But the context of this section begins with an address to the king of Tyre (v. 12). Yet, right after Ezekiel is told to write to the King of Tyre he then goes on to describe what the great majority of theologians agree with is a description of the devil's fall. So, we need to look at the context that the writer of Hebrews put Psalm 45:6 into. He addressed it to Jesus. Therefore, Psalm 45 is a Messianic Psalm and must in interpreted in light of the NT, not the other way around.
Nevertheless, the context of this verse follows:

"For to which of the angels did He ever say, "Thou are My son, Today I have begotten Thee"? And again, "I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me"? ⁶And when he again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." ⁷And of the angels He says "Who makes His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of fire." ⁸But of the Son He says, "Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom,⁹Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy companions. ¹⁰And, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands; ¹¹They will perish, but though remainest...." (Heb. 1:5-11).

To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, "But to which of the angels did he say, God is your throne." What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else.
Also worth noting here is verse 10: "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands..." This is a quote from Psalm 102:24-25 which says, "I say, 'O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Thy years are throughout all generations. ²⁵Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands.'" Clearly, God is the one being addressed in Psalm 102. It is God who laid the foundations of the earth. Yet, in Heb. 1:10, Jesus is called 'Lord' and is said to be the one who laid the foundation of the earth. This becomes even more interesting when we note that in Isaiah 44:24 it says, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone." If God was laying the foundations of the earth alone, that would mean that either Jesus has to be God, second person of the trinity, who laid the foundation the same as YHWH did, or we have a contradiction in the Bible. Clearly this section of Hebrews is proclaiming that Jesus is God. Therefore, contextually, it is best to translate Heb. 1:8 as, "Thy Throne, O God. . ." and the Father call Jesus God.

The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, it cannot permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is God. That is why they choose a translation that does not best fit the context or overall theology of the Bible.

________________
1. Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology, Intervarsity Press, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, page 227.