Truth Magazine

By Bobby L. Graham

This abominable work of the Watchtower Society, first published around 1950 and revised since that time, does a first-class job of butchering the Biblical text in an effort to pave the way for many of the erroneous views of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In many cases it becomes evident to a knowledgeable person that the translators know precious little about what they were supposed to be doing: it is no wonder that the Watchtower Society refuses to reveal the names of the so-called translators.

Their denial of the personality and spiritual nature of the Holy Spirit starts off their work in Gen. 1:2, where they have “active force,” and that is what they believe Him to be. One of their books even explained him to be something like a radar beam.

Their false idea concerning the nature of man- that he is totally physical, having no spirit-shows through in Matt. 27:50, for there they said that Jesus “yielded up this breath.” In a parallel account, Luke 23:46, it would have been absurd to translate breath and they gave us spirit. This is a clear case of their doctrine driving them to mistranslate God’s word to support their idea, but not being able to do the job consistently.

The Witnesses’ denial of the deity of Jesus finds expression in John 1:1; “a god” is what they call him. Here again, they were driven by doctrine; but in John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18 they did not give the same treatment to the same identical words in the original language because in these verses the reference is not to Jesus (whose deity they deny), but to the Father (whose deity they accept). Their inconsistencies occur in numerous other verses. In Col. 1:16 and other verses of that context, the Witnesses added the word other in an effort to substantiate their view that Jesus was a created being, not a divine being. Try beating that one for unscrupulous mishandling of God’s word!

They tried to remove the idea of existence after death for the spirit of man in their rendering of Phil. 1:23. Instead of putting depart, they put releasing, even as they did in 2 Tim. 4:6 and even explained this in the appendix at the back of the book.

In another assault on Christ’s deity, Phil. 2:6 says that Christ “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely that he should be equal to God.” Imagine such a mistranslation! Why, it forces the verse to say exactly the opposite of what the text really teaches. The truth of the passage is that Jesus did not think the being on an equality with God was a thing to be grasped or held on to, even though he existed in the form of God. He was willing to lay his heavenly rank, position, and glory down that he might come to earth to die for man.

Anointing, to them is “greasing” in James 5:14, in a, somewhat humorous rendering.

Reflecting their view that Jesus came in 1914, though the coming was invisible, 2 Thess. 2:1 speaks of His presence; and urges the people not to be upset by any message to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand.

These are some of the “abominations of desolation” in the NWT.

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, p. 506
August 10, 1978

By Bobby L. Graham

This recent version seems at first examination to be a commendable effort, having several advantages to commend it. The belief of the translators in the authority and , trustworthiness of the Bible, the techniques of translation detailed in the “Introduction,” and the dubious distinction of having a member of the church of Christ on the committee, albeit the church was represented as a denomination in the same paragraph. These considerations have made some enthusiastic concerning this work.

Upon closer examination, however, the work itself fails to fulfill our hopes. Its failings are numerous. The first inadequacy, we think, is the omission of italics from the text, thus, leaving the reader without any indication of words thought necessary by the translators. Furthermore, in spite of the Introduction’s admission that the precise meaning of some passages could not be ascertained, this version fails to translate the exact words of the original text. If there is ever a need for such translation, it is especially needed in those passages. We surely do not need the theological ideas of the translating committee. The value of truth and our need for it demand that we have the words of the original writers to make a determination of what they meant, in correspondence with other passages. What the translators thought they meant is without value in a translation. Witness 1 Cor. 15:29 (“Why are people baptized for them’!”) as an example. Here the mistranslation points in the wrong direction of thought. A correct rendering of the words of Paul, on the other hand, lets the reader draw his own conclusion in keeping with truth.

The content of the version manifests that the cloak of Calvinism has been wrapped around the effort, particularly the pernicious poison of inherent total depravity, with which the epistles reek. Ten times in Romans (7:5, 18, 25; 8:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13), once in 1 Corinthians (5:50), six times in Galatians (13, 16, 17, 19, and 24 in chapter 5, and 6:8), once in Ephesians (2:3), twice in Colossians (2:11 and 13), and twice in 2 Peter (2:10 and 2:18) the word flesh is rendered sinful nature.

This version has Jesus disavowing any intent to abolish the law and prophets in Matt. 5:17, but Paul said that was the very thing he accomplished in Eph. 2:15. The word abolish does not convey the idea of Jesus in this passage: he meant he did not come to be destructive toward. Abolishment was necessary after his fulfillment of the law.

Mark 16:9-20 is classified as second rate scripture when completely adequate evidence for it exists. Romans 4:3 mistranslates “as” instead of “for” or unto, as it should be a word looking toward Abraham’s justification. The “man without the Spirit” in 1 Cor. 2:14 is not what Paul said, nor is “perfection” in 1 Cor. 13:10 (“the perfect thing” or “that which is perfect” in the text). Such instances make learning the truth without the poison of error almost impossible with the sole use of some of the newer versions. Those of us who know the truth need to consider those who do not and point them to a correct version.

The inadequacy of the word stands out in 1 Thess. 1:5 (“not simply in words”), and “with deep conviction” is not the assurance Paul provided by means of the miraculous powers he worked in Thessalonica. Nor is “become” the same either in idea or in doctrine as “begotten” in Hebrews 1:5.

Can we not see the inferiority of this version?

Truth Magazine XXII: 32, p. 519
August 17, 1978

By Earl Robertson

God, through Isaiah, appealed unto Israel saying, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” He further declares, “. . . my word . . . shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isa. 55:7-11).

God’s right to demand the sinner to “forsake his way” is His sovereign right! He is God. God’s appeal in this matter for man to yield and submit is urged on the ground of heaven-wide differences between God and man and the thinking of God and man. Some were willing to admit the difference and stand corrected; others did not yield-the reason being their unwillingness to “let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

God has plainly spoken to man. Man can understand what God has caused to be spoken to him (Eph. 3:2-6). It seems strange to the Almighty God could not reveal himself to man in as comprehensible language as man himself can speak. How can man speak plainer than his own Maker can? Yet, this is the very feeling one has having listened to some religious guides. They read aloud what the Bible says but it means nothing to them if they wish to engage in something contrary to it. With just a flip of the page the word of God is set aside and a human dogma substituted in its place. This is done without the slightest blush, but not with impunity! This incongruous action engaged by preachers and others is done in the name of righteousness! Who can believe it is right?

Jesus plainly says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:15, 16), but man says “He that believeth is saved and may be baptized if he wishes to do so.” Both statements are not true. Which is right? The Bible says “availing prayers are for the righteous”. (James 5:16), but preachers tell sinners to pray through to salvation. Which is right? Compare John 9:31 with this. God’s way is true, right, workable. Try it and reject the dogmas of men for your blessings.

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, p. 503
August 10, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

Our title is that of an article written by a Missionary Baptist preacher, L. R. Riley. It appeared in the Baptist Herald, May 3, 1978. The arguments advanced are not new. They have been advocated and answered scores of times. A few may think that no such teaching must be considered today. Some think that what appears below is not being taught, but it is as the article proves. Now, the article by Mr. Riley.

“The study of churches is a very live and interesting subject today. I offer you the following scriptures that have to do with the church built by Jesus and that has been on the earth since He built it. The scriptures in Zechariah 6:12, 13; Matthew 16:18; Luke 1:17, 6:12, 13; and John 17:4 show that Jesus built his church while he was on the earth and finished his work.

“His churches were sufficient for all man’s needs and had not men begun to establish imitation churches all of the saved would be together in work and worship to the glory and praise of our God.

“In studying the churches of today I find that Baptists are the only ones without a human head, who put blood before water in salvation, and who say that a man is saved without belonging to any kind of a church. ‘If any man be in Christ Jesus he is a new creature.’ (2 Corinthians 5:17).

“It is my conviction that Baptist churches are true New Testament Churches. How can I be sure? What are the tests by which we can know whether a church is New Testament or not?

“Four things must be true concerning a church if it is to be considered New Testament in origin. They are:

“(1) It must be built by Jesus Christ. Matthew 16:18.

“(2) It must be built on Jesus Christ. Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 2:20.

“(3) It must have been built when Jesus was upon the earth. John 17:4.

“(4) Since Jesus was in Palestine, it must of necessity, have been built in Palestine.

“Many people tell me that there is no difference in churches. In one sense that may be true, but I suggest to you that a church is a product of Jesus and not man. The organizations built by men can never rise any higher than that of a society. You do not have to belong to a Baptist church to be saved, but may I suggest the name “Baptist’ is the only scriptural name for a baptized believer. The name was given to the world by the Lord Himself, Matthew 3:1, before John had ever baptized anyone. In this study, if you find any fault of mine, please give me the information and I will correct it.”

Answer To First Paragraph

Note the scriptures given to “show that Jesus built his church while he was on the earth.”

(1) Zechariah 6:12, 13: “And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: Even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” Christ shall come from God; He shall build the temple, bear the glory, sit and rule on his throne and shall be a priest on his throne. Yes, but not “while he was upon the earth.” Jesus did not enter into His glory until after His death (Lk. 24:26; Isa. 53:10-12). The glory He was to bear was “the glory that should follow” His sufferings (1 Pet. 1:11). Further, Christ could not sit and rule and be a priest upon His throne while “he was on the earth,” as Riley says. Why not? “For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there be priests that offer gifts according to the law” (Heb. 8:4). Zechariah stresses where the Christ shall rule as King and serve as priest “upon his throne.” Jesus did not ascent to the throne until after His resurrection (Acts 2:29-36). Therefore, He did not build the temple while “he was on the earth.”

(2) Matthew 16:18: “. . . And upon this rock I will build my church . . . .” Jesus said He would build His church, but He did not say when. He certainly did not say, “I will do it `while’ I am `on the earth.’ “

(3) Luke 1:17: “And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” This speaks of the preparatory work of John the Baptist, but does not say the church would be built “while” Jesus was “on the earth.”

(4) Luke 6:12, 13: “And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.” According to Baptist doctrine, this represents the establishment of the church. It is simply what it says, i.e., a calling of His disciples and the choosing of the apostles. No mention is made of the church being established in this text. This creates a “very live and interesting” dilemma for Mr. Riley. If Luke 6:12, 13 proves the church was then established, why did Jesus say, nearly a full year later, “I will build my church?” Matthew 16:18 was spoken a year after the calling of the twelve. Also, in Luke 10:9, the Lord said the kingdom was “come nigh” or “at hand.” Why say that if it was in existence as early as Luke 6:12,13?

Mr. Riley gives his texts a definite order: Zechariah 6:12, 13,’prophecy of the church; Matthew 16:18, promise of the church; Luke 1:17, preparation of the church; Lk. 6:12, 13; John 17:4, creation and completion of the church. But he fails to notice that Matthew was spoken afer Luke 6:12, 13.

Answer To Second Paragraph

True. Agreed.

Answer To Third Paragraph

So, Jesus is the head of the Baptist church only. He is not the head -of the Methodist Church or of any other church. Talk about those narrow-minded Campbellites!

Mr. Riley puts them all to shame since “Baptists are the only ones without a human head.” Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Lutherans, are you listening? You have never heard a gospel preacher make a bolder claim than Mr. Riley has made, yet you will “brother” him and bother us. Why?

“Blood before water in salvation” — I suppose if one teaches that baptism in water is an essential condition of pardon that he is guilty of putting “water before blood in salvation.” That is undoubtedly Mr. Riley’s point. The Baptist Herald might tell us whether or not Baptists “put repentance and faith before blood in salvation.” If baptism is accepted as one of the terms of pardon, then one is charged with putting water before blood in salvation. Well, if repentance and faith are taught as terms of pardon, are not the Baptists convicted of putting repentance and faith “before blood in salvation?”

Baptists “say that a man can be saved without belonging to any kind of a church.” That knocks out a Baptist Church, too. Being in Christ is the same thing as being in his body, the church (2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 12:13).

“Three Things Must Be True”

(1) There is no proof that Jesus built a Baptist Church. He built His church. It is “New Testament in origin,” but that does not mean it is a Baptist Church.

(2) Again, true; but this does not establish that Baptist churches are built on Jesus. We have shown that the Lord’s church could not have been built while Jesus was upon the earth. Jesus’ work was finished in that He had concluded His teaching and was committed to go to the cross. It was now in the hands of the Father to raise and glorify His Son. However, even if the church was established while Jesus was on earth, this would not prove it was a Baptist Church.

(3) Isaiah 28:16 gives us information as to the beginning of the church as does Isaiah 2:2-4 and Luke 24:46-49. But regardless of that, if the church had been built in Rome, it would not prove it was a Baptist Church.

“The Only Scriptural Name”

Mr. Riley becomes even more bold when he suggesteth, “May I suggest the name ‘Baptist’ is the only scriptural name for a baptized believer.” What? The name “Methodist” is not scriptural? No, nor neither Presbyterian, Lutheran, or Pentecostal-they are all unscriptural. But so is the name “Christian!” For, if “the name `Baptist’ is the only scriptural name for a baptized believer,” then the name “Christian” is as unscriptural as the name “Episcopalian.” Evidently the New Testament writers did not know that “Baptist” is the only scriptural name. They never called a single baptized believer a Baptist. No, not one. Peter said, “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on this behalf;” or “in this name” (1 Pet. 4:16-ASV). The name Baptist was not given to the world in Matthew 3:1 or anywhere else. It was given to John. He was “the Baptist,” not a Baptist. He was “the baptizer” simply because he baptized people (Mk. 6:24-ASV). Where did Mr. Riley learn that the name “Baptist” is the only scriptural name? Where did he learn that God gave it “to the world?” Where?

We have found fault with Mr. Riley’s article and supplied the information he requested. Now, will the Baptist Herald see that his study is corrected as promised?

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, pp. 503-505
August 10, 1978