Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

Many years ago, a lone Galilean visited the city of Jerusalem. He probably went altogether unnoticed as He tramped His way down the dusty streets through the hordes of humanity that thronged its boulevards and alleys and open-air markets during the religious holidays. And this was Passover, a time when pilgrims numbering considerably more than its approximately 25,000 inhabitants packed into the ancient town. They brought with them their money-money that would be spent on the rites of their religion as well as the other things that sight-seers and vacationers waste their wealth for when they surmise that this may be their only visit to a particular alignment place. Of course, the opportunists were there waiting for them, ready to prey upon their religiosity and good intentions. In fact, the religious leaders saw no harm in their presence. They had even allowed them to ply their trade in the Temple itself-the house of worship and prayer.

The man called Jesus, a carpenter from Nazareth, finally made His way to the great white mountain that monopolized the rough Palestinian landscape and entered its porticoed, colonnaded and gilded environs. This was the Temple of Herod. Its sheer majesty made it one of the colossal wonders of the world at that time.

A long flight of steps brought him into the first of several enclosures, the so-called “Court of the Gentiles.” The “Women’s Court,” the “Court of Israel,” and the “Priest’s Court” all lay beyond His view. All of the sacred acts of worship took place deep within these “Inner Sancta.” Nine gates guarded those regions from the view of any who desired to know their secrets. A sign at the first gate warned that none but a Jew could pass beyond it or death would be the consequence.

However, what caught the eye and ear of the Galilean as He entered was a most obtrusive uproar and sights that one should not expect in so sacred a place. Especially since this was the only court into which the foreigner could enter! For therein were arranged the booths and tables of the merchants who sold the sacrificial animals and those who exchanged the foreign currency for the Tyrian coinage which alone was acceptable tender here. The noise resembled the cacophony that ascends from a marketplace and a stockyard combined.

All at once, the visage of the carpenter changed. There arose in His soul an indignation akin to that which characterized the ire of the prophets and the God who inspired their fury in the times long passed. Indeed, it grew in intensity as He fashioned a whip out of twisted rushes from the scattered fodder and litter of the cattle. The finished product was more of a symbol than a weapon but all would know its meaning.

Up to this point, none had given attention to His presence here. But suddenly that situation changed. With the force of an army, He single-handedly purged the entire area: He chased the merchants and their animals out, overturned the tables of the money-changers, poured out their ill-gotten gains onto the stone pavement and reprimanded the pigeon-dealers thusly: “Take these things away! Do not turn my Father’s house into a market!” (Jn. 2:16).

The shock value of this action on His part was total. The Jews were incredulous, even demanding a sign to demonstrate that He was a genuine prophet. But His disciples remembered the words of another divine prophet, “My zeal for Thy house will consume me” (Ps. 69:9).

A close study of the Gospels demonstrates that Jesus purged the temple in this fashion on two separate occasions. He did so once early in His ministry (here in John 2), and once just prior to His crucifixion and death (Matt. 21:12-13 and parallels). Now, I think that very few of those who profess to be disciples of Jesus would be willing to accept the consequences of a present-day visit to their house of worship. But what if He did visit? What would that visit be like?

Would it turn out to be a purge? Would he find it necessary to chase out the musicians and entertainers, the magicians and karate-experts, the diners and the dancers, the bar-tenders and the boozers? Would he overturn the bingo-tables and pour out the lottery tickets and the gambling chips? Would he rebuke the minister with the words, “Make not my Father’s house a house of entertainment”?

With the present condition of religion in general there is a very good chance that this might accurately describe what the Lord would find and what He would do in the house where you worship. If so, then you had better do your house cleaning before the Lord does arrive, or else find another place to worship!

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, p. 505
August 10, 1978

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