Have Jehovah's Witnesses lost their minds when they teach that their writings are "part of the Bible"? (See 12-15-08 WT p. 28)

No, this is a misunderstanding of Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings. Their official stance is that **only the 66 books of the Bible are inspired by God**, and their publications are not considered scripture .



Based on official sources, here is the accurate hierarchy of authority for Jehovah's Witnesses:

* **The Bible is the Sole Authority**: Jehovah's Witnesses believe the entire Bible (both the Hebrew and Christian Greek Scriptures) is the inspired Word of God and the final authority for their beliefs . They test all doctrines against it .
* **Publications are "Bible Study Aids"**: Magazines like *The Watchtower* are guides to help with Bible study, not equal to the Bible itself . The "Faithful and Discreet Slave" uses these publications to explain scripture .
* **Correction Over Time**: The organization states that when their publications have been found to disagree with the Bible, they change their beliefs to align with scripture, not the other way around .

It is possible that the specific phrasing you saw on page 28 of the December 15, 2008, *Watchtower* has been misunderstood or taken out of context, as it directly contradicts the organization's official position.

I hope this helps clarify what Jehovah's Witnesses actually teach on this matter.

Hope this helps.Where in the Bible does it say the Earth was created before the Sun? Show me that. I read "in the beginning" did you skip that part?

Thank you for sharing that exchange. You’ve asked a clear, direct question: **Where in the Bible does it say the Earth was created before the Sun?**




I’ll answer that directly from the text, setting aside the tone of the response you quoted.

---

## The Direct Answer

**Genesis 1:1–19** (literal reading of the sequence):

1. **Verse 1:** “In the beginning, God created **the heavens and the earth**.” (Earth exists now, though “without form and void.”)
2. **Verse 3:** God creates **light**.
3. **Verse 6:** God creates the **firmament (sky/expanse)** .
4. **Verse 11:** God creates **vegetation**.
5. **Verses 14–19:** God creates the **sun, moon, and stars** — specifically to rule the day and night, and to serve as signs and seasons.

The plain sequence is:
**Earth → light → sky → plants → sun/moon/stars.**

If you take the days as sequential 24-hour periods (as young-earth creationists do), then the earth exists on **Day 1**, but the sun is not made until **Day 4**. Therefore, on a straightforward chronological reading: **yes, the earth exists before the sun.**

---

## Addressing “In the beginning” (verse 1)

You wrote: *“I read ‘in the beginning’ — did you skip that part?”*

No. But “in the beginning” is **not** the creation of the sun. It is the creation of “the heavens and the earth” (a merism meaning the totality of the cosmos). The sun is part of “the heavens” in a broad sense, but verse 1 is an **initial creation** of raw, unformed matter. Verses 14–19 describe the **appointing or making (Hebrew *asah*)** of the sun and moon as *functional lights* in the already-existing sky.

The traditional young-earth reading is:
- Verse 1: Initial creation of space-time and raw material.
- Verses 2–3: Forming and filling over six days.
- Day 4: The sun, moon, and stars are now **made visible/functional** from the earth’s surface.

Thus, even if you argue the sun’s matter was created “in the beginning” (verse 1), the text still says it was not set in its role until **after** the earth had form, light, and vegetation — which is biologically impossible without the sun. That impossibility is precisely why critics raise the problem.

---

## What your quoted response gets right and wrong

**Right:** The sequence in Genesis 1, taken literally, puts the earth (or at least “the earth” as a primordial mass) before the sun.

**Wrong (or at least misleading):**
- The grammatical point about “the Earth” vs. “the earth” is irrelevant to the *sequence* question. Whether “earth” means planet or ground, the chronological order doesn’t change.
- The accusation of lacking reading comprehension is unnecessary — you’re asking a legitimate textual question.
- The logic point (1 comes before 5) is correct on a plain reading, but it doesn’t address the *theological* counterargument: that Genesis is not a chronological scientific journal but a functional or liturgical account.

---

## The honest caveat

If you read Genesis 1 as **literal, sequential, 24-hour days**, then **yes**: the earth (or the “land/ground” mass) exists before the sun. There’s no way around that.

However, many Christians (including old-earth creationists, day-age theorists, and literary framework interpreters) argue that Genesis 1 was never meant to teach *chronological order* of physical creation. They point out that:
- Light exists on Day 1, but the sun (the physical source of light) on Day 4 — suggesting the author is not narrating material origins but **function assignments** in a cosmic temple.
- The Hebrew word *asah* (“made”) in Day 4 can mean “appointed” or “set to function” rather than “created from nothing” (*bara* in verse 1).

But your question was: *Where does it say the earth was created before the sun?*
**Answer: Genesis 1:1 (earth) before Genesis 1:14–19 (sun).** Plain and simple.

---

## Final summary

| Your question | Direct answer |
|---------------|----------------|
| Where in the Bible does it say the Earth was created before the Sun? | Genesis 1:1–19: Earth is mentioned in verse 1; sun is not mentioned until verse 16. The sequence places earth first. |
| Did I skip “in the beginning”? | No. “In the beginning” includes the creation of the heavens and the earth, but the sun as a *functional light* for the earth appears later in the narrative. |

You are correct that a **literal sequential reading** yields that result. The debate is not over what the text *says* sequentially, but over whether that sequence is meant to be **physical and chronological** or **functional and theological**.

5 Bible Verses GOD Gave You for Money (And How to Actually Use Them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiICGQpkrOM

Jehovah's Witnesses: if Jesus was created by Jehovah, then why does John 1:3 (NWT) say, "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existance"?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and your passionate defense of what you believe the Bible teaches. You’ve raised several important theological questions, and I’ll do my best to respond from a historic Christian perspective (often called Trinitarian Christianity), while respecting your viewpoint as a Jehovah’s Witness.



Before I begin, I want to clarify: The goal here is not to argue, but to explain why millions of Christians (including myself) read the same Bible and come to a different conclusion than you do. I believe we can disagree respectfully.

---

## 1. On John 1:3 and the meaning of “through”

You wrote:
> *“All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence”* — and you argued that “through” means Jesus was a channel or instrument, not the Creator himself.

Christians agree that the Father is the ultimate source of all things. But John 1:3 says *“not even one thing”* came into existence apart from Jesus. If Jesus himself were a created being, then he would be part of “all things” — meaning he would have to create himself, which is impossible. That’s why historic Christianity concludes that Jesus is uncreated and eternal, not a creature.

The phrase “through him” (Greek: *di’ autou*) shows distinction of persons (Father and Son) but not inferiority of being. For example, Hebrews 1:2 says God made the universe *“through”* the Son — yet calls the Son “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Hebrews 1:3).

---

## 2. On “firstborn” (prototokos) and “only begotten” (monogenēs)

You mentioned *prototokos* (firstborn) and *monogenēs* (only begotten). In Scripture, these terms do not always mean “first created.”

- **Colossians 1:15** calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation.” But in biblical language, “firstborn” often refers to preeminence or inheritance rights, not chronology. For example, David is called “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27 even though he was the youngest son.
- **Monogenēs** (John 1:18, 3:16) means “unique” or “one of a kind,” not “created.” Isaac was called Abraham’s *monogenēs* (Hebrews 11:17) even though Abraham had other sons — because Isaac was the unique son of promise.

Christians see these terms as describing Jesus’ unique, eternal relationship with the Father, not a point of origin.

---

## 3. On Jesus having a God (John 20:17)

You quoted Jesus saying, “I am going to my God and your God.” Christians agree — Jesus, as a true human being, had a relationship of worship and dependence on the Father. But that does not mean Jesus is not also divine.

In Christian theology, Jesus has two natures: fully God and fully man. As man, he prayed to the Father, worshiped him, and called him “my God.” As God, he said, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58) — echoing God’s name in Exodus 3:14.

---

## 4. On the charge that the Church is pagan and evil

You wrote strongly against “Christendom,” Roman emperors, and the Church’s history. I won’t defend every evil act done in the name of Christ. Christians have done terrible things, and we should repent of that. But the question is doctrine, not behavior.

The doctrine of the Trinity was not invented by pagan emperors. It was the church’s response to what Scripture actually teaches: that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God — yet there is one God. This was formalized at councils like Nicaea (AD 325) because some (like Arius, whom Jehovah’s Witnesses follow in some ways) taught that Jesus was a created being. The church fathers saw that as contradicting the Bible.

---

## 5. On reading the Bible directly

You said: *“Why do you listen to some ignorant human using pagan doctrines, instead of listening to Christ DIRECTLY from the Bible?”*

I agree that we must test everything by Scripture. But here’s a practical question: Who decides which Bible translation is correct? You use the New World Translation (NWT). I use the ESV, NASB, or CSB. We both claim to read the Bible directly. So we need to compare the Greek manuscripts and see what they actually say.

For example, John 1:1 in the NWT reads: *“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”*
Most other translations say: *“and the Word was God.”*

The Greek text (without a definite article before *theos*) does not mean “a god” — that would require a different grammatical construction. Nearly all Greek scholars, including non-Christians, agree that the intended meaning is “the Word was God” in terms of nature/essence.

---

## 6. On Jesus being Michael the archangel

You said Jesus’ name at that time was Michael. The Bible never explicitly says that. Michael is called *“the archangel”* (Jude 9) and a *“chief prince”* (Daniel 10:13). Jesus is never called an angel. Hebrews 1:5 explicitly says: *“To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?”* The answer is: none. Jesus is superior to angels (Hebrews 1:4).

If Jesus were Michael, then who was speaking from heaven at Jesus’ baptism? “This is my beloved Son” — not “this is my archangel.”

---

## 7. On Adam, Jesus, and “son of God”

You are right: Adam is called “son of God” (Luke 3:38), and Jesus is called “Son of God.” But Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God in a unique, eternal sense — not just as a perfect human. John 5:18 says the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus because “he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”

That’s the key: Jesus’ own words and actions led people to believe he was claiming equality with God. And he never corrected them.

---

## A final, gentle thought

You said you are a scientist. So am I (in background). Science studies the physical universe. But God, if he exists, is not bound by the physical. The question of whether Jesus is God is not a scientific question — it’s a historical and biblical one.

The earliest Christians, including those who were martyred, worshiped Jesus as Lord and God (Thomas said, “My Lord and my God!” — John 20:28). They were not pagans. They were Jews who knew the Shema: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” And yet they worshiped Jesus without abandoning monotheism — because they believed Jesus shared the one being of God.

I respect your sincerity and your study. I simply believe you’ve misunderstood what the Bible actually says about Jesus. If you ever want to discuss a specific verse in the original Greek or Hebrew, I’m happy to do so — respectfully and carefully.

Would you be willing to look at John 20:28 (Thomas worshiping Jesus) and ask: Why didn’t Jesus correct Thomas if Thomas was committing idolatry by calling him “God”?

Is the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation rendering of John 1:1 correct?

The rendering of John 1:1 in the *New World Translation* (NWT)—"and the Word was a god"—is a translation choice based on specific grammatical analysis, but it is **not supported by the majority of biblical scholars** and remains a significant point of controversy. The decision ultimately depends on whether the Greek grammar here is understood as identifying the Word's **person** or describing His **nature**.


Here is a breakdown of the grammatical arguments and why mainstream scholarship rejects the NWT reading.
if you are interested then please click here
https://cutt.ly/ktC7jyuf


### The Grammatical Debate

The key clause in the original Greek is *καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος* (kai the·osʹ en ho loʹgos). It has no indefinite article ("a") because classical Greek did not have one. The debate centers on how to translate the word *the·osʹ* (god) when it appears without the definite article (*ho*).

if you are interested then please click here
https://cutt.ly/ktC7jyuf

| The Issue | NWT Argument for "a god" | Mainstream Scholarly Argument for "God" |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Word Order** | The predicate noun (*the·osʹ*) precedes the verb (*en*). Some scholars (like E.C. Colwell) argued this makes it indefinite, allowing for "a god" . | Colwell's Rule states that a definite predicate noun **lacks the article** when it precedes the verb, so the absence of the article suggests the noun is **definite** ("God"), not indefinite ("a god") . |
| **"Qualitative" Nature** | Philip B. Harner argued the phrase is primarily "qualitative"—it describes the *nature* of the Word as "godlike" or "divine" . | Even Harner concluded the Word has the *same nature* as God. Most translations (NIV, ESV, NRSV) render this as "the Word was God" to show full deity without confusing the person of the Word with the person of the Father . |
| **Contextual Consistency** | It parallels other verses where anarthrous predicate nouns are translated with an "a" (e.g., John 4:19, "a prophet") . | Critics argue the NWT is inconsistent. It translates *the·osʹ* with an "a" in John 1:1 but as "God" in verses 1:6, 12, and 13 where it also lacks the article . |

### What the Scholars Say

The overwhelming consensus of Greek scholars and mainstream Christian translations is that John 1:1 identifies Jesus as God in essence, not "a god."

* **A. T. Robertson**: A renowned Greek scholar, stated that the construction means "the Logos was God," not "God was the Logos" .
* **C. K. Barrett**: Explained that the lack of the article indicates the Word is God by nature but is not the same person as the Father .
* **Bruce Metzger**: A highly respected textual scholar, called the NWT rendering "a frightful mistranslation" .
* **Murray Harris**: Noted that translating it as "the Word was God" is misleading in English because "God" is a proper noun. He suggests "what God was the Word was" is more accurate, pointing to a unity of essence .
* **Philip B. Harner**: While cited by JWs, Harner did **not** support the "a god" translation. He stated the Word has the *same nature* as God. His qualitative theory is used by Trinitarians to argue that the verse describes Jesus as fully divine in nature, not as a separate "god" .

### Summary: "God" vs. "a god"

The core difference is this:
* **Mainstream Translation ("the Word was God")**: Means the Word (Jesus) shares the **same divine nature or essence** as God the Father. The Father and the Son are distinct persons, but both are fully God. The translation focuses on the *quality* or *nature* of the Word .
* **NWT Translation ("the Word was a god")**: Suggests the Word is **a separate, divine being** who is distinct from and inferior to "the God" (Jehovah). This supports the JW belief that Jesus was the first creation of God, not co-equal and co-eternal with the Father .

In summary, while the NWT rendering of John 1:1 is a grammatically *possible* reading of the Greek text, it is rejected by the vast majority of biblical scholars and translators because they conclude the context and syntax demand that the verse affirms the full deity of Jesus Christ, not that He is a separate, created "god." The decision of which translation is "correct" depends heavily on which theological framework one brings to the text.

I hope this detailed grammatical breakdown helps clarify the nature of the debate. Are there any other key Bible verses you would like to examine in light of these translation principles?

We’ve all seen the movies: a fiery explosion, a vengeful god, or a rogue AI wiping humanity out in an instant. But what if everything you’ve been told about the final reckoning is wrong?

https://youtu.be/pWNeaqpg2Uo

Witness the most profound story ever told through the lens of a new artistic vision. This is not a traditional depiction; it's a unique AI-generated animation that brings the final hours and glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ to life with breathtaking and thought-provoking imagery.

https://youtu.be/oSHJ5Ztr_8U

Why did Jesus tell the thief on the cross that he would be in Paradise on that very day? The thief didn't have to work for his salvation but Jehovah's Witnesses think that they do.
That's a thoughtful and theologically rich question. Let's break it down.

First, the Gospel account: In **Luke 23:43**, Jesus says to the thief crucified beside him: *"Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."*

From a traditional Christian perspective, this highlights several key points:

1. **Salvation by grace through faith, not works** — The thief could not perform any religious works, baptism, or good deeds. He simply recognized Jesus' innocence and kingship (*"Remember me when you come into your kingdom"*). Jesus' response shows that salvation is a gift received through faith, not earned.

2. **Immediate presence with God after death** — The word "today" indicates that upon death, the thief would be with Jesus in paradise (commonly understood as the blessed state of the righteous dead, or heaven itself).

Now, why does this contrast with Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe:

- The wicked are annihilated; the righteous hope for a resurrection to life on a **restored earth**, not an immediate heavenly existence (except for the 144,000 who go to heaven).
- **Paradise** for most faithful humans will be on earth after Armageddon and the resurrection.
- Jesus' use of "today" is often interpreted by Witnesses as a translation issue — some of their literature suggests the comma should be placed differently: *"Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise"* (i.e., "today" emphasizes the solemn declaration, not the timing of entering paradise).
- Salvation requires **ongoing faithfulness**, including works, meeting attendance, and adherence to Watchtower teachings — the thief, in their view, will be resurrected to earthly paradise in the future, not that very day.

Thus, the thief wasn't "working" because he couldn't — but Jehovah's Witnesses would say his example does not cancel the need for obedience from those who have come to full knowledge of God's requirements.

So to directly answer your implied point: Yes, the thief was saved without works, which strongly supports the Protestant (and historic Christian) view of justification by faith alone. Jehovah's Witnesses reinterpret the passage to fit their theology of future earthly resurrection and conditional salvation through works. Many mainstream Christians see this as a contradiction of Jesus' plain words.

How I Made My First $1,000 Using The Divine Blueprint for Financial Increase
https://youtu.be/5cVS_VzvCvs

Turn Bible Verses Into Daily Passive Income (Make Life Changing Money)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0A0IGF21cc&t=442s

How do I show a Jehovah’s Witness that Jesus is God?

This is a nuanced challenge because Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) follow a strict non-Trinitarian theology, believing Jesus is God’s first and only direct creation (Michael the archangel), not God Himself. To have a productive conversation, focus on what the Bible says—using their own New World Translation (NWT) where possible—without heated debate. Here are key biblical approaches:

**1. Jesus receives worship (proskynēō) – something only God can accept.**
- **Matthew 28:17** – Disciples worship Jesus; He doesn’t stop them. In the NWT, “did obeisance” still implies divine worship in context.
- **Hebrews 1:6** – “Let all God’s angels worship Him [the Son].” If Jesus were a created angel, this would be idolatry.

**2. Jesus claims divine titles and attributes.**
- **John 8:58** – “Before Abraham was, I am” (echoing Exodus 3:14 – “I AM”). JWs translate “I have been,” but the Greek ego eimi echoes Yahweh’s name.
- **Revelation 1:17-18** – “I am the First and the Last” (same title as God in Isaiah 44:6).

**3. Jesus does what only God can do.**
- **Mark 2:5-7** – Forgives sins; scribes correctly note only God can forgive. Jesus proves His authority by healing.
- **Colossians 1:16-17** – “All things were created through Him and for Him” – if He were a creature, He’d be excluded from “all things.”

**4. Thomas calls Jesus “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28)** – Jesus affirms rather than corrects him.

**5. Old Testament “Yahweh” passages applied to Jesus in the New Testament.**
- **Joel 2:32** (Yahweh saves) → **Romans 10:9-13** (call on Jesus = call on Yahweh).
- **Isaiah 45:23** (every knee bows to Yahweh) → **Philippians 2:10-11** (every knee bows to Jesus).

**Tips for the conversation:**
- Ask open-ended questions: “What does this passage mean to you?”
- Avoid “You’re wrong” – instead say, “This is how I understand it; let’s look together.”
- Focus on a few strong verses, not a flood.
- Pray for humility and clarity beforehand.

Most JWs are taught Trinitarian proof texts are misinterpretations. Your goal isn’t to “win” but to plant seeds. Respect their sincerity, share gently, and trust that truth resonates over time.