Christian publishers have recently adopted a genre of the nature, "X number of questions every member of X group should ask." One of these apparently is directed to JWs, and we were asked to look at a response to this book on the site of our old friend "Heinz" (who we responded to on the Trinity here).

Since many of the questions are outside our specialty area, having to do with "internal" JW apologetics issues (the accuracy of the New World Translation, for example) we have many cases of issues outside our immediate scope. However, we will offer what comments we can, with the proviso that those related to internal issues are not necessarily worth being considered a "final word".

1. Since Fred Franz admitted under oath that he and nobody else on the (New World Translation) committee could read either Greek or Hebrew, how could they "translate" the manuscripts and be accurate?

Reply: Actually, your information is not true, and that from several different angles. But, the proof is in the pudding, and many experts have viewed the NWT as very good Bible (click here for more). To argue otherwise would be to argue against divine providence, which makes you anti-Bible and anti-God. (cf. Psalm 12:6, 7; Daniel 12:4; 1 Peter 1:24, 25)

We are not in a position to evaluate the merits of the NWT, but on the latter point, about divine providence, we would point readers to our essay here. Heinz's reply is merely a variation of the Skeptical argument that God should have preserved accurate copies of the Scriptures, and of the naive KJV Onlyism methodology. We need much more detailed proof before this pudding can be eaten. But Heinz does give some specifics:

2. In the New World Translation, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in reference to God, it is translated as "worship" (Rev.5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in reference to Jesus, it is translated as "obeisance" ( Mt. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is the same word in the Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for this inconsistency? If the NWT was consistent in translating "proskuneo" as "worship", how would the verses above referring to Christ read?

The argument as far as it goes has some truth; while the majority of instances of proskuneo indicate religious devotion, Matt. 18:26 seems to be an exception, and the word is used to mean fawning or bootlicking, in essence. However, the proper focus here nevertheless is indeed the identity of Jesus, and we have reckoned with Heinz's views in the link above (in which he unwittingly ends up providing us cites with which we agree!).

Question 3 makes the same point (and receives the same basic answer) about the NWT translation of kyrios ("Lord") and the NWT insertion of "Jehovah" in the NT when it is not in the Greek (one might regard this as pro-JW theological translation, after the manner of a Living Bible; but the key is not that it is done, but whether the evidence supports it, viz our link above). Question 4 has to do with John 2:18-19 and Jesus' identification of his body with a Temple -- whether this passage carries Trinitarian implications or not may be discussed, but as shown, again, in the link, there is enough for that as is.

5. The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" as "I am" every time it appears (Jn 6:34, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.) except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been". What is the reason for the inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was translated in Jn 8:58 the same way it is translated in every other verse in which it appears, how would Jn 8:58 read?

Reply: Again, do all Bible Versions translate "ego eimi" as consistently also. The following versions do the same thing that the NWT does. Why? It is called "Extension from the Past" idiom or PPA (Present of Past Action), which makes its occurences at John 8:58 different from the others...

This is very interesting, because all of the versions Heinz cites agree with a Trinitarian view (The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born.") and the "I AM" view stated in the question! Apparently Heinz still can't understand when he refutes himself.

Item 6 has to do with the JW idea of the cross as a stake, a point we answer here (against an atheist with a similar argument). Item 7 wrests over the placement of a comma in Luke 23:43, in which Jesus promises Paradise to the thief; this is apparently in reponse to JW doctrine of "soul sleep" which we look at here. Whether "today" was when they would be in Paradise, or when Jesus said what he did, is not as relevant as contemporary Jewish conceptions of Paradise.

8. In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly", says of himself, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who "became dead, but, look, I am living forever and ever", refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of God, says, "...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end...". God is also referred to as the "first" and the "last" in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can be only one first and one last?

Reply: Revelation 22:12-13 does not have Jesus speaking, but his Father, God. In fact, this verse is speaking of Jehovah in Isaiah 40:10, but referring to his son, the Arm of Jehovah.

This is a little hard to believe, since the words of Rev. 22:12 ("I come quickly") are the same as those said by Jesus (as cannot be denied) in Rev. 3:11 and 22:20. Other than that Heinz still has not got Trinitarian theology down, and confuses it with modalism, thinking that the Son is the same as the Father on that view, and still not getting a grip on functional subordination ("The Father's superiority to Christ is shown in the very first verse of Revelation, where Christ is described as one who was *given* knowledge by God." Yes, we agree with that in Trinitarianism!) Other than this all Heinz can do is quote Unitarian writers or others who, like Buzzard, wrest the passage into another mold by saying that it means things like Christ is called this because "he is the beginning and the consummation of the Church, which was founded by his first, and will be completed by his second appearance." (The fact that "beginning and end" was a common title for God, and that none of these modifying extras appears in the text, does not disturb such rewriters in the least.)

Items 9 and 10 are more of Heinz not understanding, as in the link above, that Wisdom theology contradicts his neo-Arian Christology. It is especially interesting to note how he wrests Col. 1:16 to read, of Jesus, "...All [other] things have been created through him and FOR HIM". Admitting that "other" is not in the Greek (and repeating a Unitarian argument, also without basis, that it makes to sense to say things were created "for" Christ), Heinz excuses this by comparison to Luke 11:29 in some versions:

Reply: Is it wrong to add the word "other" to the text? Do other versions do it also? Compare Luke 21:29 "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV) "Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News Bible (TEV) "Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American Bible(NAB)...In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets?

Heinz is mixing figs and oranges here, since in the category of "trees" there are clearly other trees, whereas whether Jesus is in the category of "created things" in the very question at issue, and to insert "other" in Col. 1:16 is to beg the question. It is worthwhile to note as Heinz does, indeed, that "other" is often omitted from Greek (assuming it is true; he cites a source, but no page number); nevertheless, the context is established not by the verbiage alone but by the Wisdom theology context that entirely refutes the JW position.

Item 11 posits this objection from our side:

Jn 1:3 says in reference to Christ, "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence". How could Christ have been a created being if ALL things came into existence through him? If Jesus was a created being, then according to Jn 1:3, Jesus would have had to create himself.

In reply Heinz claims that "the Bible puts limitations on the word 'ALL,'" and cites 1 Corinthians 15:27-8, "'He has put all things in subjection under his feet.' But in saying 'all things', it clearly means to exclude God who subordinates them; and when all things are thus subject to him, then the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God who made all things subject to him..." This would be useful, except that it contains the very specific sort of limitation clause that Heinz needs to bring John 1:3 into his fold. Heinz goes on to cite hyperbolic uses of "all" in the NT, but all this would leave him with in John 1:3 is the idea that there are some things not created through Christ, which would leave him out in left field wondering what else was not created through Christ (tree stumps? rocks?); it is merely a hermeneutic of convenience to pull out the hyperbolic "all" just for the sake of saying that maybe Christ was the only thing excluded. (Not that it matters, since Trinitarianism regards Christ as a generated creation of the Father, eternally so; even if here and in Col. 1:16 Christ could be put in the excluded category, it would still not aid the JW case at all.)

Item 12 is much the same, using Phil. 2:9, but it is worth commenting on Heinz's tactics here. The questioner asks why the NWT inserts "other" in the text; Heinz replies by asking why several other versions do as well. "Perhaps they are all Jehovah's Witnesses." Probably not, but citing what others translations do is no more viable for a JW than for a Skeptic. It just as well proves that the other versions adding "other" made the same mistake the NWT does. In short, whether it is right or wrong to add "other," what Heinz offers is no reply at all but merely a polemical "me too." He will have to do much better than that to gain any credence.

Item 13 has an objector asking, "If Christians are persecuted for the sake of Jehovah's name, why did Christ tell the first Christians that they would be persecuted for the sake of his (Jesus) name instead of Jehovah's (Mt24:9, Mk 13:13, Lk21:12, 17, Jn15:21, and Acts 9:16)?" Heinz replies that "name" also means "authority" and that God gave Jesus authority; "If Jesus was really almighty God, why would he need to be given anything." Here again Heinz still hasn't a grip on Trinitarianism, thinking it means Jesus = God in a one to one correspondence; in real Trinitarianism, the functionally subordinate Word would need to be given the Father's authority. In any event Heinz's reply does not really answer the question, since we would still ask why the believers would be persecuted for the sake of Jesus' name/authority rather than Jehovah's.

Item 14 deals with the JW belief in a soul sleep; see link above. Item 15 notes God is called our Savior in the OT, and that Jesus is called our Savior in the NT, and asks why this is so. Heinz replies by noting that "Jehovah raised up saviours in the past" such as the Judges and other military leaders. This is not an adequate answer for a couple of reasons. First, like pagan Christ-mythers who note that figures like Dionysus, etc were called "saviour," the key question is not the word itself, but what it is they "save" (green stamps? comic books? lives?) and how (military intervention? spiritually?). In this regard, while of course God in the OT has been a "saviour" at a variety of levels, only he and Jesus ever claimed to be a "saviour" at a universal level. The parallel demands far more than a breezy dismissal and comparison to temporal judges, especially in light of God's OT claims to be the exclusive saviour in a universal sense.

Item 16 rests on a technical point of Greek grammar beyond our scope, though it again rests upon ideas refuted by the Wisdom theology connection, not on Trinitarianism as Heinz has misapprehended it. Item 17 has to do with internal JW claims of prophecy; this is outside our scope though we find it interesting that Heinz simply washes his hands of the JW leader Rutherford who prophecied a second coming in 1935. Heinz compares this to the question, "Why have trinitarian Christians led some of the bloodiest and cruelest crimes against human history? ", but none of these Christians were in leadership positions in which they were accorded prophetic status.

Item 18 (and 20) deals with false predictions through the years; Heinz compares this to eschatological speculation by other Christians, though we would ask again whether JW predictions, if made under the umbra of prophetic status, are really comparable. Item 19 has to do with the subject of heaven and the afterlife, a subject beyond our present scope. Item 21 concerns John 14:14, "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it," asking why "me" is omitted after "ask". Of course it is not in the KJV either, and Heinz naturally pulls up other versions that omit "me" as well, but the real issue is whether indeed Jesus is the one we ask, and here -- yes, even a broken clock is right twice a day -- Heinz points to John 15:16 and 16:23, which make the Father the one we ask. Not that this is a problem. Jesus as the functionally subordinate Word would not be the one to ask anyway, (Strangely, though he has been confusing this all along, Heinz now says, "Remember, according to trinitarian theology, Jesus is NOT the Father." We know that -- so why is Heinz thinking this is what we think?)

Item 22 has to do with blood transfusion, which we addressed here. Heinz adds some useful information on modern techniques that have reduced the need for transfusions, but this hardly addresses situations prior to this new technology, and in places where this technology is yet to be available, It is also claimed, "God also had the people circumsized in the Bible, yet babies die every year due to this procedure." No stats or sources are offered for this conclusion, which we would like to see backed up with morbidity stats from the Department of Health or some other authority before it can be given credence (as well as have it shown that circumcision itself, as opposed to say, bleeding, was the cause).

Question 23 has to do with JW insertion of "Jehovah" in the NT text. We have some material on this here, but Heinz adds a wide variety of factoids such as, "...you will find that there is a wide discrepancy between most translations and versions as to the number of times KYRIOS is translated as 'Lord'" and "It is widely known among textual critics that the later Byzantine manuscripts embellished titles like 'Lord' and inserted them more into the actual text. This was done by Trinitarian scribes." He then turns the question around and asks why "most Catholic and Protestant versions omit the divine name in the OT" and suggests it is for a "profit motive." Well, that surely answers the question and provides adequate documentation. We'd like a lot more proof before we can accept these stories of nasty scribes and embellished titles.

Question 24 has to do with the claimed authority of the Watchtower Society, an issue beyond our scope. Chapter 25 hints at false and failed prophecies of JW leaders; Heinz insists (and we agree) that this should be applied fairly everywhere (is "they do it too" an answer?) but then tries to rank the question of Acts 1:6-7 and the expectation of Luke 24:21 as "failed prophetic views," which is a tremendous category error, since they were statements by non-prophets designed to establish the truth -- the question asked here is related to JW leaders who made predictions, not who asked questions, and categorizing them all under the general fudge-heading "prophetic views" isn't going to cut the mustard.

Questions 26,27, and 28 have to do with internal JW practices and doctrine, and are beyond our scope. Question 29 states:

29. How do you know that there were any vacancies, if any, in the 144,000 class if Jesus offered this to first century Christians? How can the organization know the exact number of vacancies today without any records from the first century?

Heinz replies:

How do I know if nominal Christianity teaches the truth if it is run rampant with gross ignorance of the Bible and what it teaches. How can mainstream Christianity be right if they will willingly kill their own spiritual brothers in war. Why is pedophilia a major problem for certain mainstream Christian faiths? Matthew 7:16, 17, "By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."

There isn't much to say here; Heinz here and in a few other places thinks that "answer a question with a question" is an actual answer. We're still left to ask how one knows there are any vacancies left in the 144K after all this time (see our view on the 144K here).

Question 30 has to do with internal JW doctrine and is beyond our present scope. Question 31 is another "answer the question with a question" routine:

31. Why would the name God gave to His people not be "Christians" since Acts 11:26 says "The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch"? Why is the name "Jehovah's Witness" found nowhere in the New Testament, if that is God's divine name for his people under the new covenant? Why would God wait almost 2000 years to suddenly start using the name "Jehovah's Witness".

Reply: "The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries." George Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15

We address Howard's article in the link above, but still see no answer to the question. In fact, Heinz goes on for a few paragraphs about removal of the divine name from texts, and about Trinitarianism, but the question is, "Where is the use of the name of 'Jehovah' in conjunction with the title of the movement, supposedly 'Jehovah's Witnesses' from the beginning?"

Question 32 asks, "If the name 'Jehovah' is so important, then why is it never used in the entire Greek New Testament? If men edited out the name of God 'YHWH' when they copied the New Testament, as only the Watchtower organization claims, then how can we have any confidence in any of the New Testament? Should we discard the New Testament or the Watchtower as unreliable?" Heinz replies with some links about altered texts, but offers no specifics himself, much less detailed interaction with textual-critical questions.

33. If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say, "There is salvation in no one else; for their is no other name [v,10 Jesus Christ] under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved"? Would this not have been a logical place for god to have used the name "YHWH"?

Heinz replies with another non-answer:

Reply: " Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name" Phil 2:9 Why would almighty God need to be given anything? How many times in the name Jehovah (YHWH) in the Bible? 6828 times. How many times is the name Jesus in the Bible? It is in the NIV 1226 times, the KJV 943 times, the NASB 881 times and the NRSV 1088 times? What does the name Jesus mean?

Here again Heinz seems to have a confused, modalistic understanding of Trinitarianism as he showed here. Jesus is not one to one equivalent with "almighty God" but is a functionally subordinate, ontologically equal attribute of almighty God. It is indeed possible for him to be given the authority and name of lordship, and is indeed YHWH or Jehovah (not "Jesus" -- as we say in reply to some Unitarians, "The 'name which is above every name' is a clear reference to the name of Yahweh, and is also a clear allusion to Is. 45:23 ('I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.'...which thereby include Jesus Christ within the divine identity.")

Questions 34-5 have to do with internal JW teaching and are beyond our scope. Question 36 has to do with the JW idea that Jesus was a created being, which we refute in the link just above. Question 37 has to do with the existence of the soul related to the doctrine of "soul sleep" which we will address in the future (though Heinz neglects to address the meaning of the word pneuma or spirit). Question 38 answers a question about the 144,000 by saying they will come out of the earth, with which we do not disagree; but that of course is not the entire scope of the issue (and probably does not answer the intent of the question). Question 39 has to do with translating John 1:1 as "the Word was a God," which as we showed in the link above makes no difference and does not affect Trinitarianism even if true. (It also manages to abscond with the word "elohim" in ways we have addressed here.)

Question 40 asks, "Jesus Christ is referred to as 'Mighty God' in Isa 9:6 'For there has a child born to us, there has been a son given to us...And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God...'. Jehovah is referred to as 'Mighty God' in Isa 10:20-21. How can this be if there is only one God (1 Cor 8:4, Isa 43:10, 44:6)?" This question should probably be reworded for greater depth. Once again, if read too literally, we would end up with a modalism in which God and Jesus are identical, one to one. That is not the view of the NT. Heinz replies by citing 1 Cor. 8:6 (which we reply to versus Unitarians in the link above) and notes that Is. 9:6 has not always been understood as saying "mighty God" even by Trinitarians (but rather something like "mighty hero"). Well, that would be fine with us -- that gets rid of any possible twist into modalism, while not affecting a Trinitarian view at all.

Question 41 has to do with the NWT propensity to translate a Greek word, esti, as "means" rather than "is" in verses like Matthew 26:26-28 ("And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.") I have to admit that I see no issue with such a translation and do not see why it should be an issue. Barring issues of transubstantiation (which is beyond our scope), all would agree that the bread and wine are symbols and that they "mean" the body of Jesus in some way. Heinz even quotes: "The broken bread is a symbol of Christ's body" from the NASB Zondervan Study Bible. I'm not sure what the purpose of the question was.

Question 42 has to do with John 20:28. As against the Unitarians, we will not argue the points about John 20:28 as it does not establish the fundamental differentiation of Trinitarianism even if Jesus is being called "God" (it could just as well be used to support modalism). Question 43 has to do with the personality of the Holy Spirit, and it is a long answer. Because it is germane and others may use the same objections, we will shift some of our answers to the article here. Otherwise, Heinz, with the help of a Unitarian writer named Milton, offers yet more confused, modalistic understanding of Trinitarianism (this time with the Holy Spirit) which also fails to account for functional subordination.

Question 44 has to do with the idea of annihilation, a subject we deal with here. Question 45 has to do with the nature of Christ and is again countermanded by our material linked above (Heinz still does not grasp the idea of functional subordination in Trinitarianism). Question 46 deals again with the 144K, which, since we consider the matter refuted by the link above on Revelation, we see no need to address. 47 has to do with "soul sleep" which again we will deal with at a later date (though we will not that Heinz misuses Ecclesiastes just as skeptics do -- verse 9:5 is the "negative" argument being bounced over the net of the dialogue).

Question 48 asks, "If Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE, why does every historical and archelogical source (including many secular sources the Watchtower itself uses such as Encyclopedia Britannica, etc.) state that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BCE?" I am not clear on the point of this question; presumably JWs have some interest in Jerusalem being blotted out in 607, but I do not know why. (I was pointed here by a helpful reader later on.) Heinz at any rate makes some reply about Babylon falling in 539, and that being 70 years from 607, but it's not clear how he thinks this answers the question. Perhaps the JWs misapprehend the prophecies of Jeremiah about "70 years" even as Skeptic X does.

Question 49 asks, "Since Jesus is claiming to be the 'first and the last' in Rev 22:12,13 and since Isa records Jehovah as saying, 'I am the first and the last; apart from me there is no God', who is 'the first and the last'?" Heinz responds with this odd reasoning:

But then, with the same reasoning, we can say: All dogs have four legs; My cat has four legs; My cat is a dog.

That's really not the same thing. It would be like saying, rather, "My dog is President; my cat is President; my dog is my cat." The property of having four legs is not titular. From here Heinz tries to say that "first and the last" has "limitations when used of Jesus" and is used "always in reference to his death and resurrection." Heinz provides no explanation for this and then proceeds to offer the following:

We must remember that God cannot die (Hab 1:12 NJB). Jesus however is the "the firstborn from the dead."

Once again Heinz trips on his modalistic misapprehension of Trinitariansm -- and shows a lamentable lack of apprehension of incarnational theology. God cannot die, but if God (or one of His attributes) inhabits a body, and the body dies, this does not mean that God dies with the body. The incarnated body is an accessory, not a necessary attribute of God.

Interestingly, the Codex Alexandrinus [usually indicated by the letter "A"], uses the word "firstborn" instead of "first" at Rev 1:17 and 2:8, but at Rev 22:13, where it refers to the Alpha and Omega, this codex uses the word "first" instead of "firstborn." Even this scribe recognized the difference.

Assuming that this is true, the confusion of one codex does not set the textual record and cannot even begin to do so unless it has an earlier date than other mss., and this codex dates no earlier than the late fourth century. Heinz closes with a section criticizing arguments that "try to find similarities in what Jesus and Jehovah did" to make them the same being. He replies with sets of parallels between Jesus and Joseph (Jacob's son) and asks if this makes Jesus and Joseph the same. I am not evaluating the merits of the Jesus = YHWH argument here, but the comparisons Heinz draws are of earthly events common to many people (shepherding sheep, loved by Father, etc) -- not in the same category as the usual Jesus = YHWH connections (creator, savior, etc). Heinz needs to take a lot more care if he wants to refute this connection.

Question 50 and last again has to do with John 1:1 and the use of "a God," which again, we consider non-problematic (see link above).

And that's it. Heinz closes with some "gotcha" quotes by Christian leaders who say that average Christians need some education. They are probably right, but Heinz need to take a chill pill before he uses this sort of quote to say things like, "Perhaps JW-Haters that post this dreck should look at their own church end educate their own members, and save themselves the constant embarrassment of a dazed look as they cannot defend their God and their beliefs." As someone who hasn't figured out that Trinitarianism isn't modalism, Heinz hasn't relieved himself of the dazed mask as yet either.