Did Jesus Claim to Be
God?
page l 1 l 2 l 3 l
- 1 -
I have been studying
with a particular Jehovah’s
Witness for several years and he told
me they use their own Bible because
they say other versions of the Bible
have been tampered with. Is this
true? They say there is no Trinity.
They believe there is only one God
and that God is Jehovah (the Father).
They say that Jesus was created by
Jehovah as a separate and distinct
being. When Jesus came to
Earth, they say He came as “a
perfect human,” not as God in
the flesh. They say that Jesus
Himself never claims to be God in the
Bible. They say that Jesus is not the
Alpha and the Omega, but instead,
Jehovah is the Alpha and Omega. I
will respond with several Bible texts
that will expand the truth verses
error.
The apostle Paul
wrote, “For we cannot do
anything against the truth, but only
for the truth.” (2
Corinthians 13:8) It may seem strange
at first, but no religion on Earth
has all the truth about God. Every
religion on Earth is theologically
corrupt in one way or another. This
does not mean that religion is
inherently evil. It just means that
people need to understand that
religion is not a destination. It is
only a means to an end and that end
is “a beautiful reflection of
God’s love” in every
believer. Unfortunately, all kinds of
false doctrines are floating around
and the only way we can separate
truth from error is closely test
everything according to God’s
Word. Paul wrote, “Test
everything. Hold on to the
good.” (1 Thessalonians
5:21)
Jehovah’s
Witnesses have created their own
Bible, which they believe is superior
to all other versions. Their Bible is
called the “New World
Translation” (NWT). Their Bible
is not regarded as a legitimate
translation by most Hebrew and Greek
scholars because (a) it does not stay
within accepted rules regarding the
use of vocabulary and syntax, and (b)
JW created it to support their
unusual beliefs. In other words, it
is a self-serving translation, and no
other organization uses it. (For
further discussion on their version
of Scripture, see Dr. Walter
Martin’s book, The Kingdom of
the Cults.) As far as I am
concerned, willfully altering Bible
text and calling it “God’s
Word” in order to accommodate
parochial presuppositions shows a
complete disregard for God’s
authority. This is why I also reject
the use of external authority. No
rabbi, priest, pope, bishop, apostle
or prophet can change or alter
God’s Word. It is what it is
and it remains unchanged through all
ages even though people may think to
change it. The Bible is all that we
have to test claims about God and His
will. If all religious organizations
manipulated the Bible to favor their
parochial views as JW have done, then
in a few generations no one would be
able to determine truth from error!
God’s Word would disappear.
This may surprise you,
but Jehovah’s Witnesses were not
the first denomination to insist that
their version of the Bible is
superior to all others. The Catholic
Church did the same thing. Catholics
maintain the “Douay-Rheims
Version” of the Bible is the
only authentic English version of the
Bible. In A.D. 382, Pope Damasus
(A.D. 366 to 384) commissioned his
personal secretary, Jerome, to gather
up all of the Greek and Hebrew texts
of the Bible and translate them into
Latin (the official language of the
Roman Empire at that time). This
translation became known as the Latin
Vulgate or the Versio Vulgata, which
means “the published
translation.” Jerome tedious
efforts and through scholarship had
few rivals for a long time. As
centuries passed, the use of Latin
all but disappeared as the Roman
Empire faded into a consortium of
nations and languages called Europe.
In the sixteenth
century, Protestants translated and
distributed bibles in various
European languages because (a) they
were demanding a reformation of the
Church based on Bible truth, and (b)
very few people could read or
understand Latin. As various
translations of the Bible circulated
(and lay people discerned the errors
of the Church), the Catholic Church
finally responded in 1546. (This was
29 years after Martin Luther nailed
his 95 theses to the church door in
Wittenberg.) To keep the laity from
reading conflicting Protestant
bibles, the Church declared
Jerome’s Latin Vulgate to be the
only authentic and official
version of the Bible.
To overcome a growing
number of Protestant translations
which people could read, the Church
finally translated the Vulgate’s
New Testament and it was first
published in English in Rheims
(France) in 1582 and the Old
Testament was subsequently published
in Douay (France) in 1609. In
1604, Protestants realizes their need
for one authorized Bible, instead of
many different translations, so they
created the King James Version (KJV)
of the Bible, which they published in
1611. Both the original KJV and the
Douay-Rheims Version of the Vulgate
contained 73 books. Both versions
originally included seven extra books
that are called the Apocrypha. Jerome
did not believe God inspired the
apocryphal books, but Pope Damasus
believed they were, so naturally,
Jerome’s Bible included the
apocryphal books. Today, Catholic
scholars generally believe that Pope
Damasus was right because the Dead
Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1946,
confirmed that the apocryphal books
were included in a version of the
Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation
of the original Hebrew writings that
did not include the apocryphal books.
Even though I have
several Bible translations in my
personal library, I favor the New
International Version (NIV) for
investigative study and the KJV for
poetic language and literary style.
For me, the strengths of the New
International Version are (a)
it’s a conservative [as literal
as possible] translation using
contemporary English, and (b) during
its preparation, every humanly
possible effort was put forth to
reduce religious bias. One
hundred scholars were selected from
diverse religious backgrounds to
produce the NIV. Of course, now
translation is perfect, including the
NIV. The work of translation and
editorial review was divided in a way
that religiously diverse scholars had
to edit and review each other’s
work. As a student of biblical Greek
and realizing the challenges that go
with translation, I sincerely
appreciate the unusual effort that
the NIV committee took to produce
“a neutral translation of the
Bible.”
I must hasten to write
that I also love the King James
Version. I find the use of the Old
English in the KJV to be eloquent and
poetic even though the King’s
English is very difficult to
understand in places. Approximately
sixty translators of Oxford (England)
who wanted to put God’s Word in
the King’s English translated
the KJV over a period of seven years.
These translations basically appended
William Tyndale’s 1524 version
of the English New Testament to their
work and this is how the King James
Version came to be. Ironically,
this so-called “authorized”
version of the English Bible was
never authorized. King James approved
the translation of this Bible, but
neither he nor parliament
“authorized” it once it was
completed. Through the years, the KJV
has undergone more than 500 changes.
While some people may dislike these
next words, I must say that the KJV
is not perfect, either. The original
publication of the KJV included the
seven apocryphal books, but they were
not included in subsequent printings
because Protestants eventually
rejected the apocryphal books as
uninspired. However, the KJV remains
one of my favorite English
translations.
page l 1 l 2 l 3 l
- 1 -
