First and the Last of Rev 1:17 - why in caps?

by Trotafox 27 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Trotafox

  Referring to the excellent "kitchen" witness scene in gregbetre's thread regarding JW's denying the deity of the Christ, I do have one question.....

  Rev 1:8; 17-18; 22:13 states that Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, and the beginning and the end. I don't think it is true that all JW's will say that Rev 1:17 refers to Jehovah. The reason I say this? In referencing my NWT, I have marginal notes by Rev 1:17 that indicates the WTS is teaching that the First and the Last [note cap case] is "a title bestowed upon Jesus by God; calling attention to his unique resurrection." So somewhere down the line they are teaching that Rev 1:17 does refer to Jesus and not Jehovah as Ron Carlson's JW's stated in his kitchen.

  If this is the case, how in the world do they deny the deity of Christ when they go back to Rev 22:13 that states that the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, and the beginning and the end all all the same? Evidently the Dubs have not taken the trouble to look at the two verses side by side (and neither does the WTS and we no why).

  Also interesting is their use of the caps case in "First and the Last" in the NWT. Check out the WTS's own Greek Interlinear Translation. I don't know Greek, but I do have eyes. The Greek words used for "first and the last" are identical to those used in both Rev 1:17 and Rev 22:13. Someone correct me if this is wrong. Why does the WTS choose to capitalize them in Rev 1:17? The NASB version does not capitalize the first and the last in either verse.

  Any clue?

  Trot (of the just curious and furious class)

  Edited by - Trotafox on 15 September 2002 16:16:12

  Edited by - Trotafox on 15 September 2002 16:17:37
• 

  DakotaRed

  Trot, although I do not consider myself a scholar or even very learned, it is my understanding that the ancient languages did not use capital lettering or punctuation as we know it today. So, to me, the obvious answer would be that the translators decided to capitalize it.

  This brings up one of my many problems with the Bible. It was the Catholics that initially put the Bible together and almost every religion greatly distrusts them, but uses basically the same Bible they declared as inspired.

  I once corresponded with the publishers of Strongs Concordance about the definition of a word being somewhat different in two editions of Strongs (sorry, don't remember what it was now). Their answer basically, was that it was based on an added definition later. Essentially, I see that as changing and adding definitions to suit our later whims.

  What I would really love to find is a very literal interlinear translated without any translator bias at all. To my knowledge, none exists. Therefore, when I look for meanings, I use multiple translations and even then, don't always trust what some translator says is correct.

  What with so many different translations over the centuries, I'm not all that sure it is even an inspired book anymore.

  Lew W
• 

  DJ

  Hi Trot,

  I can only come up with the obvoius here. They may be thinking that somehow subliminally by the use of caps it would lead the reader to believing that it is the Father being spoken of. Sometimes, I think that the sole pupose of the WT's existence is to knock the deity of Jesus whatever way possible.

  In Isaiah when the Father proclaims that he is the first and the last..does the watchtower take that to be referring to his resurrection too? Wow, actually that would lead them into concluding that Jesus is Jehovah. Oh my, we can't have that now can we???????

  I used to think that they were masters of deception. Now I just think they're dumb. dj
• 

  pomegranate

  Maybe the

  Maybe Father has been just watching Sonny Boy from His favorite easy chair...maybe.
• 

  Fatal Error

  This might help

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=31297&site=3
• 

  Trotafox

  Ah, Dakota (Lew), please don't feel that way. Sometimes we all get so involved in the nit-pickin of everything that we forget about seeing the whole picture. I have no problem with the Bible and do not doubt it's inspiraton. God can protect his Word. The only time I get nit-picky is when I'm trying to understand how in tarnation JW's get their incredibly stupid ideas. It's never to convince myself; I don't need convincing but JW's do.

  My personal thought is that the JW's capitalized "First and the Last" in Rev 1:17 to go along with a Title meaning that it is not to be understood in the same context as the other verses mentioning "first and the last" but if anyone had the TIME or INCLINATION (and, of course, JW's noses are forever at the grind stone) they would see that all the "first and the last" verses refer to God and the deity of the Christ.

  DJ: The Isaiah 44:6 is interesting. Good grief. If the Dubs would just THINK and do a little research they could see how twisted the WT teachings are. It's really a shame that they deny Jesus as God.

  pomegranate: To tell you the truth, the Trinity is not really that hard to understand. Just hard to explain. It's just a realization that fianlly came together for me after leaving JW's. I rejected the Trinity all my life because it sounded illogical and no one could every explain it to me properly. That's one of the reasons, I think, I fell for the JW's bologna that Jesus was not God. And I think that suckered my best friend into it also (plus the prospect of Paradise Earth so she would see her Mother again). Ah yes....they always manage to pick on the vulnerable!

  Trot
• 

  DJ

  Hi Trot.....me again....I was sure that I would NEVER believe in the trinity too. I think that IS why a lot of people stay dubs. I used to think to myself....."Even if the jw's aren't right I have to stay because everyone else is deceived with that Trinity stuff."

  I was not taught the trinity by man..it is taught by the holy spirit through the scriptures. I couldn't believe it at first....but it just kept coming...verse after verse. This is not man-made. It's too weird to think up anyway...lol God is so kewl............ Thanks for your thread. dj
• 

  willy_think

  Why the caps?
  An intentional attempt to mislead and deceive, in order to protect the dogma of the WT cult.
• 

  Cygnus

  I think it's simple. JWs do not believe that the Son is co-equal with the Father based on so many texts you are already familiar with. The Trinity sets up a paradox where the Son is both equal and inferior the Father. JWs do not believe that Jehovah expects anyone to trust and believe something like that. So when Jesus is called Alpha and Omega, it must be referring to something other than an eternal nature.

  After all, where is the Holy Spirit called Alpha and Omega?

  And furthermore, the Bible calls Jesus the King of Kings. It also says that Nebuchadnezzar was the King of Kings. Can we rightly assume that Jesus is Nebuchadnezzar?
• 

  Undecided

  Hi Trotafox,

  If Christ is God, then the whole idea of the ransom goes out the window. Could God give himself to himself as a ransom? Does he talk to himself like on the cross when he said,"Why have you forsaken me? It makes no sense, like most of the other doctrines of Christendom.

  Ken P.

  PS: You could just say it is a mystery, like most of the ones I have talked to before. And you would be right, God is a mystery!!!