« Main Search

More on Sharp's Rule, Trinitarianism and Rob Bowman
Part Six: The Truth about "the Only True God"

By Greg Stafford



The Bible teaches that angels are "gods," that Jesus is an "only-begotten god," and that Jehovah is the God of gods. (Ps. 8:5; 136:2; Micah 5:4; John 1:18) Further, the Bible tells us that the Father is "only true God" and that He is the "one God." In contrast, trinitarianism teaches that the Father, Son and holy spirit are the only true God, and that they are also the one God.

So why do trinitarians consider their view biblical when it is in direct conflict with clear statements of Scripture? Let me allow Rob Bowman to explain this unbridgeable gulf. I will, of course, point out the many problems with Bowman's attempt to harmonize the post-biblical view of the Trinity with the biblical view of God and Christ. Please consider our arguments carefully, before you decide which position is in harmony with Scripture.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Posted by Rob Bowman on June 18, 1998 at 21:29:03:

Reply to Stafford on Sharp's Rule
Part Five: The Meaning of Calling Jesus "God"
By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.



BOWMAN:
In this final installment of my reply to Greg, we will assume that Jesus is indeed called THEOS in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Even granting that premise for the sake of argument, Greg maintains that these verses would not be identifying Jesus Christ as Jehovah God, but instead as a lesser, inferior divine being or god. We conclude, then, with a refutation of this claim.



STAFFORD:
Remember, not only does Bowman proceed with the above-stated assumption, but he assumes a meaning for THEOS that is nowhere articulated in Scripture, but is the result of post-biblical theology that is in conflict with the teachings of Scripture (see below).



BOWMAN:
H. HAS GREG SHOWN A SECONDARY, POSITIVE SENSE FOR "THEOS"?

If Jesus is called THEOS in these or any other biblical texts, this poses a direct contradiction to Watchtower theology unless that usage can be successfully distinguished from the Bible's customary usage of THEOS for Jehovah. Greg follows the standard Watchtower line here, arguing that the Bible calls creatures "gods" in a secondary, lesser sense. Furthermore, he argues that such a secondary sense must apply in ANY text, including Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, that might call Jesus THEOS.



STAFFORD:
And Rob here follows the standard trinitarian argument by objecting to the biblical teaching that others are called "god" or "gods" in a lesser, positive sense. Consider:



BOWMAN:
In my paper on Sharp's rule, I had written:

"The plurality of Gods explanation founders on the simple fact that the Bible repeatedly asserts that there is only one God (Deut. 4:35, 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 14, 21-22; 46:9; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; 1 John 5:20; Jude 25). It says this in just about every way that the Hebrew and Greek languages permit. The biblical passages cited here use three different Hebrew words for God (the singular el and eloah as well as the intensive plural form elohim) as well as the singular Greek theos. They not only contain the simple expressions 'one God' or 'only God' but also make such assertions as 'there is no other God.' Attempts to circumvent this plain, explicit, and repeated teaching of Scripture are unsound, as I have argued elsewhere" (Bowman, 27)

Greg replied:
>>>And I have argued that Bowman's view on this matter is unsound and unbiblical. See Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, pages 185-201. . . . he fails to realize that, as is the case with angels and some humans, Jesus can be called "god" with a sense different than that understood for the Father. . . . So when the Bible says there is but one God, we must first determine the sense for the term when used in this restrictive manner. . . . The fact is the Bible nowhere denies that the angels are gods. It does, however, specifically identify them as such. (Ps. 8:5, and others).>>> (Stafford, 27c)



BOWMAN:
Although Greg did "argue" that my "view on this matter is unsound and unbiblical," he did so without giving serious consideration of MY arguments. In the section of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended to which Greg refers (pp. 185-201), Greg refers to my writings only twice (pp. 186, 188-89).



STAFFORD:
Bowman is not the only person to try and get around the clear teaching of Scripture on this matter, so I do not have to refer to him directly every single time I discuss issues relating to this subject.



BOWMAN:
The first reference quotes me but does not discuss the arguments I give for what I said.



STAFFORD:
I stated your position clearly and accurately. Then I refute it clearly and accurately.



BOWMAN:
In the second reference he briefly describes my view on the question of whether angels are gods and attempts to rebut only one of my exegetical objections to the Watchtower interpretation of Hebrews 2. In neither of these references to my writings does Greg represent my position or argument fairly or accurately, as I shall explain shortly.



STAFFORD:
This is an act of desperation, as we will see below.



BOWMAN:
Greg cited two of my books in the above-mentioned section: Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John (Baker, 1989) and Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Baker, 1989, cited here as Trinity). Here is a quick run-down of the arguments from those two books that were not even mentioned by Greg in his section supposedly refuting my position on whether creatures are ever called gods in a positive sense. For an elaboration of these arguments (which in some cases may be necessary to appreciate their force), please consult those books.

1.Never in Scripture is the singular Hebrew form EL or the singular Greek form THEOS applied in a positive, approving sense to an angel, mere human, or any other creature.



STAFFORD:
Let me start by saying that the reason I did not address this specific argument is because it is so bad that I was not about to waste any space talking about it. If the Bible calls angels "gods" collectively then are they not gods INDIVIDUALLY, also? Bowman thinks his arguments are so good, and that if you don't address every single argument his position is somehow still intact. Trust me, I have no problem responding to Bowman's book line by line, paragraph by paragraph, subject by subject. But I am not going to waste space talking about some bad argument he actually thought worthy of print, when I could be discussing more useful and informative matters.

Of course, when we analyze Bowman's arguments the usual holes appear rather quickly. First of all, how is it that 'elohim differs from 'el when applied to God? If anything the intensive plural is MORE majestic! So when an "angel" is called 'elohim in a positive sense, as in the case of Judges 13:22, it is obvious that Bowman's position is hopelessly without merit. It gets even more interesting when they (= trinitarians) start arguing that this particular angel is some sort of "Jehovah angel," an uncreated angel! Anything to protect their view, I guess. Of course the Bible says NOTHING about any such being, but trinitarians have developed a habit of giving new meanings to words and reading unscriptural concepts into the Bible. I say this, not to be mean, but because it is a reoccurring problem that is an integral part of trinitarian apologetics.

Again, there is actually a difference between an intensive plural and the singular 'el, but it is a difference that argues AGAINST Bowman's view, since 'elohim is actually more majestic than 'el. At any rate, it is of interest to note that the singular THEOS is applied to the angel in Judges 13:22 LXX. Also, the use of 'el in Isaiah 9:6, for the future Jesus, is translated by ANGELOS ("angel") in the LXX (9:5), just like 'elohim is in Psalm 8:5. Thus, we again enter the realm of sense and reference, which Bowman regularly confuses. On a side note, the LXX recognized a clear difference in sense for 'el in Isaiah 10:21, translating it as "strong God." Isaiah 10:21 LXX gives us a literal word-for-word translation, and a literal interpretation. Isaiah 9:5 LXX gives us an interpretive translation, which is a literal interpretation. You'll see why I say this after considering the arguments about Ps. 8:5 below.



BOWMAN:
The singular THEOS in the NT always refers either to the true God or, in six instances, to a false god (Acts 7:43; 12:22; 28:6; 2 Cor. 4:4; Phil. 3:19; 2 Thess. 2:7). Thus, there is no third use of the singular THEOS to refer to a creature as "a god," unless we count the texts calling Jesus THEOS (Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, 58-60).



STAFFORD:
And since Jesus is an "only-begotten god," and since he is distinguished from God in terms of THEOS, AND since there is one who is God to him, then we should naturally understand the use of 'el/THEOS for him as we do of angels in the OT: Jehovah is the God of lesser gods. (Ps. 8:5; 136:2; John 1:1, 18; 20:17) It's that simple. Unless Bowman is going to argue that Jesus is a false god, the only conclusion is that he is a lesser god, the only-begotten god, the Son of the Father, Jehovah. (Micah 5:4) Of course, trinitarians cannot have that, for they have already committed themselves to a view of God that is taught in post-biblical creeds.



BOWMAN:
1.None of the many texts that say there is only one God can fairly be construed to mean merely that there is only one God that is almighty, or that is to be worshipped, or that is named Jehovah. The statements are explicit and unqualified affirmations of one God and denials of any other (Trinity, 51).



STAFFORD:
This is directly refuted in my book, on pages 194-196. All of the statements to which Bowman refers ARE qualified and contrast Jehovah with the idols of man, and those who set themselves up in opposition to Him. Bowman is just making things up again. Of course, when the Bible does refer to "one God" or "the only true God" it is NEVER done unambiguously in reference to Jesus, but it IS done unambiguously in reference to the Father, Jehovah, Jesus' God. (Micah 5:4; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5) The Father is the one God, the only true God, and the God of His Son. Again, it's that simple.



BOWMAN:
3. ELOHIM in Psalm 8:5 should be translated "God" because Psalm 8:3-8 closely parallels Genesis 1:1, 8, 16, 26-28, where ELOHIM clearly means "God" (Trinity, 52).



STAFFORD:
Oh my…Can everyone sense the desperation in the above argument? Think about it, really. Just how does Psalm 8:3-8 closely parallel Genesis 1:1, 8, 16, 26-28, so that 'elohim in Psalm 8:5 "should be translated `God'"? Let's see, Genesis 1:1 says that God MADE the heavens and the earth. In verse 17 we are told that God MADE the expanse and caused a division between above and below the expanse. Genesis 1:8 says God called "the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day." Genesis 1:16 talks about how God MADE the two "great luminaries," and verses 26-28 tell us that God MADE man and woman in His image and the image of those with Him, and that He blessed them. But Psalm 8:3-8 reads, according to the NRSV (bracketed comments are original to NRSV):

"3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; 4 what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals {Heb [ben adam], lit. [son of man]} that you care for them? 5 Yet you have made them a little lower than God, {Or [than the divine beings] or [angels]: Heb [elohim]} and crowned them with glory and honor. 6 You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet, 7 all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, 8 the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas."



STAFFORD:
Now, notice that the Psalmist is saying "YOU," that is, Jehovah (verse 1), MADE him (man) a "little lower than" … Whom? Well, since God is the one making them it doesn't make sense for David to indirectly refer to God when he uses the first person and directly addresses Jehovah throughout this Psalm. But, more than that, we are not a "little lower than God"! Thus, William Hugh Brownlee admits: "That man is infinitely less than God all ancient Jews knew right well; but the Psalmist declares man to be a little less than the angels, little short of supernatural." ("Anthropology and Soteriology in the the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament," in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays, Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring, ed. James M. Efird [Durham, N. C.: Duke UP, 1972], page 217) But, of course, Paul makes this quite clear in Hebrews 2:7, 9. Notice how Bowman tries to get around this:



BOWMAN:
4. The focus in Psalm 8:5 is on the exalted status of mankind, whereas the focus of Hebrews 2:7 is on the temporary humbling of Christ (Trinity, 53).



STAFFORD:
Notice how Bowman makes a point, that he imagines has some bearing on this issue, but does not? Actually, man's status is not exactly "exalted" in Psalm 8. Rather, David, in view of the grandeur of God's heavenly creations, asks how God even considers man worthy of His attention. Yet, in spite of our lowly state God made us in his image, just below the angelic gods, and gave us dominion over the beasts of the field, the fish of the sea and the birds of heaven. Bowman also robs Hebrews 2:7 of its true import, which is hardly limited to a temporary "humbling of Christ." Paul states that Jesus, like mankind before him, was made "lower than angels." The LXX identifies the "gods" of Psalm 8:5 as angels, and Paul accepts that identification as accurate. Thus, Jesus was NOT a God-man while on earth, but "emptied himself" by giving up his divine nature and assuming a human nature. (Php 2:6-9) That is why he was "lower than angels." If he were a God-man he would not have been "lower than angels." But this is where post-biblical, Chalcedonian theology enters the picture, unfortunately.



BOWMAN:
5. If Hebrews 2:7 does implicitly understand ELOHIM in Psalm 8:5 to mean "gods" and refer to angels, Hebrews may be arguing that angels should not be worshiped as gods, since throughout this passage (Heb. 1:5-2:18) he is arguing for the superiority of the Son to all angels (Trinity, 53).

STAFFORD:
There is absolutely nothing in Paul's quotation of the LXX that in anyway argues for what Bowman wants to read into this text. ALSO, Psalm 8:5 is talking about the NATURE of those below whom man was made. That is why the issue is how they were "made." Man is "lower than angels" in terms of nature, as the angels are 'elohim. Paul is merely taking this same distinction and applying it to the nature Jesus assumed, which was similarly "lower than angels."



BOWMAN:
6. The above interpretation of Hebrews fits Hebrews 1:6, which quotes Psalm 97:7 as commanding the angels to worship the Son; in the Psalm the angels are called ELOHIM, but clearly regarded as the powers behind idols (Trinity, 53).



STAFFORD:
Bowman completely ignores what I say about this in my book, and for good reason. The fact is Paul is likely quoting the LXX of Deut. 32:43. But Bowman fails to mention this here or in his book. What is more, Psalm 97:7 says nothing about angels being the power behind idols.



BOWMAN:
7. The Bible flatly states that demonic spirits are NOT gods (1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8), thus proving that angels cannot be truly regarded as gods on the basis of either their being spirits or their mighty power (Trinity, 53-54).



STAFFORD:
Try as you might, you will NEVER find in 1 Cor. 10:20 or Gal. 4:8 anything resembling this statement: "The Bible flatly states that demonic spirits are NOT gods." It is also a non sequitur to argue that this misuse of Scripture proves that "angels cannot be truly regarded as gods on the basis of either their being spirits or their mighty power." Both demons and angels are gods. The only difference is one group serves the Most High God, and the other opposes Him by drawing the worship of others after themselves.

Now do you see why I ignored much of what Bowman wrote? Bowman makes things up and ignores key data in order to force feed his readers his brand of theology, which is unbiblical. The Bible says the angels are gods, Bowman says they are not. We accept what the Bible says, Bowman rejects it because such a view cannot be harmonized with his post-biblical theology (see below).



BOWMAN:
Greg also cites Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34-36 in support of the claim that some human beings can be called "gods" (Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, 191-92). His treatment here completely ignores my discussion of these passages (Trinity, 55-58).



STAFFORD:
This is almost too much. Anyone remotely familiar with what I wrote concerning these texts knows that I do not commit to identifying the "gods" in these verses as human judges. THAT is the conclusion Bowman puts forth, without even suggesting that this text could be referring to angels. In fact, I make no definite conclusion on this matter, so how could I and why would I respond to Bowman's weak treatment of this subject which assumes (that's his wording, page 55) a view that I do not necessarily agree with? Also, I make a key point regarding Jesus' use of Psalm 82, and Bowman completely ignores it. See pages 191-192 of my book for details.



BOWMAN:
Let me respond briefly to Greg where he did interact with my writings in this section of his book. He quotes me where I wrote, "for JWs to translate 'a god' is in one sense grammatically possible, but only if they are willing to adopt a pagan interpretation of the entire verse." While denying, of course, that his interpretation is pagan or unbiblical, Greg uses my statement as support for his claim that "grammatically it could be rendered 'the Word was God,' 'divine,' or 'a god'" (Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, 186). Likewise, in his critique of my paper Greg writes:

>>>However, I find it interesting that proponents of the Trinity selectively emphasize the grammar of a passage in one instance, and the theology in another. For example, Bowman, in his book Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and that Gospel of John, page 62, states regarding John 1:1: "For JWs to translate `a god' is in one sense grammatically possible, but only if they are willing to adopt a pagan interpretation of the entire verse." Well, Mr. Bowman, we could say the same thing for you with regard to Titus 2:13, especially in view of the post-biblical meaning you pour into the term theos as applied to Jesus. Grammar is not the absolute basis for interpretation.>>> (Stafford, 19-20)

Now, a careful reader may notice something in Greg's quotation from my book. The statement that the rendering "a god" is "grammatically possible" is QUALIFIED by the little phrase, "in one sense." This phrase will alert the critical reader that Greg has neglected to state whether and, if so, in what sense I argue that such a translation is NOT grammatically possible. Lo and behold, I did make such an argument in the very paragraph Greg is quoting:

>>>Taken out of its biblical context and transposed to a pagan Greek context, "the Word was a God" would be a possible rendering. However, in that context "God" in the preceding clause ("the Word was with God") would not refer to the God of the Bible, to a one true and almighty God. This is because, as has been conclusively demonstrated, grammatically THEOS refers to the Word as THEOS in the same sense as, or of the same kind as, TON THEON. Thus, in a pagan context TON THEON would refer to the same kind of "god" as THEOS - namely, a finite god in a pantheon of many gods. The point is that for JWs to translate "a god" is in one sense grammatically possible, but ONLY IF THEY ARE WILLING TO ADOPT A PAGAN INTERPRETATION OF THE ENTIRE VERSE. It is completely invalid for them to translate the first two clauses in keeping with biblical theology, and then to translate the third clause in a way acceptable only to pagan polytheistic readers. In other words, it IS grammatically impossible to understand TON THEON in the second clause to mean an infinite, eternal, and absolutely unique Creator God, and in the third clause to understand THEOS to mean simply a mighty angel.>>> (Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, 62; capitalization represents italics in the original)

Now, is it honest to quote me to the effect that the NWT rendering is grammatically possible, without reporting that I also stated that in a more important sense such a rendering is NOT grammatically possible? I don't think so.



STAFFORD:
I have often heard that people who feel trapped, or who are backed into a corner, react abnormally, out of desperation. While I would not say Bowman's response is abnormal, it is certainly indicative of desperation. Let me explain. Dishonest, ignorance, deception, look up every one of these terms, for I think they all apply to Bowman's above-stated argument. The paragraph from my book where I quote Bowman reads:



<<QUOTE>>
According to one issue of The Watchtower: "Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny Jesus' godship, or divinity. They accept what John 1:1 says of him, that he is `a god.' However, the Church [in this context the Greek Orthodox Church] says that Jesus is not just a god but that he is the almighty God." As noted earlier, the translation "the Word was God" is difficult to understand unless it is read by a person who has been taught to interpret it according to Trinitarianism (and even then it does not seem to make much sense to most Trinitarians), because this would then help them understand how Jesus could be "with" God and at the same time be "God," without (allegedly) violating the biblical teaching of monotheism. On the other hand, Robert Bowman maintains that "for JWs to translate `a god' is in one sense grammatically possible, but only if they are willing to adopt a pagan interpretation of the entire verse." But which translation, as well as the understanding attached to it, is really guilty of clashing with the Bible's teaching that there is only one true God? This is the key point in determining the proper translation of John 1:1c, for grammatically it could be rendered "the Word was God," "divine," or "a god."-Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, pages 185-186.

<<END QUOTE>>





STAFFORD:
So, from my quotation of Bowman, the only conclusion one could come to, is that he believes "a god" is "in ONE SENSE grammatically possible, but ONLY if [we] are willing to adopt a PAGAN INTERPRETATION OF THE ENTIRE VERSE." Of course, I also reference Rob's book after I make this quote, so anyone can check it out further if they so choose. But, again, it is impossible to understand my quotation of Rob's book, as given above, in any other way than as he intended, which is, "a god" is ONLY possible in ONE SENSE, that is, if we adopt a PAGAN INTERPRETATION OF THE ENTIRE VERSE.

In light of this, we do well to ask: Rob, what were you thinking? Why are you wasting our time? Why are you dishonestly trying to make it seem as if I did something that I did not? Is this what you learned in seminary? There are many other questions I could ask, but Bowman is no longer worthy of serious consideration, as his arguments consistently demonstrate. I am not saying this to be mean, but I am frustrated, because Bowman is misleading many of you with arguments like the above. The only reason I think some of you believe Bowman, if any of you do, is because you also believe in the Trinity, and have come to rely on him for your arguments. I know it is hard to imagine that someone whom you view to be a serious scholar could advance such arguments, but he does! He also makes personal attacks without knowing any of the facts, and thus reveals his true motives. Believe me, if you had been attacked, misrepresented and misquoted for over three months, you would understand why I feel this way toward Rob. For an example, review his argument above, and my answer, or just review any of my previous replies and you'll see how Bowman consistently misrepresents what I say. He also misrepresents the WT, as we discussed previously. Here is one example:

FROM PART TWO OF MY REPLY

<<QUOTE>>

STAFFORD:
On pages 71-73 of Bowman's book, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, to which he referred, he puts forth the following arguments as justification for his view about the two-natures of Christ. I will quote the first and last paragraphs and then paraphrase the arguments in the remaining second and third paragraphs.

FIRST PARAGRAPH

BOWMAN:
"Then there are texts that speak of the Father as the God of Jesus Christ (e.g., John 20:17; 1 Cor. 11:3). The Watchtower booklet [Should You Believe in the Trinity?] argues: `Since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same time be that God' (p. 17). But again, trinitarians do not hold that Jesus is his Father. They hold that Jesus, because he became a man, was placed in a position in which as man he was required to honor the Father as his God. At the same time, trinitarians may point out some aspects of the Bible's teaching that show that JWs have misunderstood the implications of the Father being Christ's God."

STAFFORD:
Before we discuss the "aspects" to which Bowman refers, it should be pointed out that 1 Cor. 11:3 does not refer to the Father as Jesus' God. This is not a significant matter, but I find it odd that he would reference this passage as an instance of the Father being Jesus' God. I don't think Bowman actually considers "head" the equivalent of "God," which, in this context would not work very well, given that man is the "head" of woman. Second, Bowman misrepresents our argument. Please read the second sentence of the above paragraph. Notice, the Witnesses' objection has to do with the fact that Jesus "had a God," which quite obviously means that "he could not at the same time be that God"! But Bowman's objection is, "trinitarians do not hold that Jesus is his Father." How does this objection relate to the "Booklet's" objection?

<<END OF QUOTE>>

STAFFORD:
Bowman does this all the time, unfortunately. Here is another example from his book, which I also gave in Part Two of my reply:

<<QUOTE>>
FOURTH PARAGRAPH (Of Why You Should Believe in the Trinity):

BOWMAN:
"Then there are texts that simply refer to `God' alongside Christ in such a way as to distinguish them. For instance, 1 Timothy 5:21 speaks of `God and Christ Jesus,' and 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between `one God, the Father,' and `one Lord, Jesus Christ.' But trinitarians have a simple answer: These texts refer to the Father as `God' not because Jesus Christ is less than God, but simply because the title God was normally used of the Father."

STAFFORD:
On a side note, there are shortcomings on page 73 of Bowman's book that I will not address here, but they are addressed in Chapter 4 of my book. Now, notice that both 1 Timothy 5:21 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguish God from Christ. THAT MEANS they are not the same God! We will discuss this point further in a few moments, but it should be noted that Bowman's answer, "These texts refer to the Father as `God' not because Jesus Christ is less than God, but simply because the title God was normally used of the Father," completely misses the point of our objection. It is particularly noteworthy that 1 Cor. 8:6 refers to the Father, one person, as the "one God." Yet, trinitarians consider the "one God" three persons.
<<END OF QUOTE>>

STAFFORD:
Until Bowman agrees to honestly deal with our arguments, I am afraid that little progress will be made. But we'll keep trying!



BOWMAN:
The other place where Greg interacts with my writings in this section deals with the interpretation of Hebrews 2:7 in its quotation from Psalm 8:5. Let me respond to his arguments at this point.

First, Greg argues that the translation of Psalm 8:5 as "a little lower than God" must be wrong because "it is hardly the case that man is a 'little lower' than God!" (Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, 188). Greg is able to cite evangelical scholars Archer and Chirichigno in support of this argument (188 n. 58). However, I would simply point out that Psalm 8 is a song, written in Hebrew poetic style. The description of man here is probably to be taken as a hyperbolic way of saying what Genesis 1:26-27 states, namely, that man was made in the image of God (ELOHIM, as in Ps. 8:5). Again, see my discussion of the relation between Psalm 8 and Genesis 1 for amplification of the argument.



STAFFORD:
The desperation continues…Psalm 8 says that our being in the image of God is either a little lower than God or gods (= angels). The Targums, LXX, Syriac Peshitta and the Vulgate all agree that 'elohim here refers to angels. Of course, the apostle Paul accepts this identification, also. Bowman's position is without foundation. Yes, it's a song. What's your point? What could you possibly be trying to prove? What would be the point of saying, even in hyperbole, that we are a "little less than God"? Does that sound like something an ancient Israelite would say, even in song? Being made in God's image does not make us a "little less than God." Of course, as I have pointed out above, the first-person direct address to Jehovah does not make sense if "God" in verse 5 is also taken in reference to Jehovah. But, again, your interpretation is not only against the Bible (Heb. 2:7, 9) but against most, if not all, ancient authorities. But when such an iron-clad text disagrees with your preconceived views, you are faced with two options: 1) Accept it in spite of what you think, or 2) dishonestly try to distort it.



BOWMAN:
Second, Greg objects to the idea, which he attributes to me, that "the INSPIRED writer of Hebrews 2:7, 9 would quote from an INACCURATE translation of the Hebrew of Psalm 8:5" (ibid., 188). Greg admits that "angels" is not a literal translation of ELOHIM, but points out that the Septuagint was an interpretive translation, not a woodenly literal or word-for-word translation (ibid., 189). Exactly what I said!

>>>The fact that the writer of Hebrews quoted the Septuagint does not imply that the Septuagint rendering he quoted was a literal or accurate word-for-word translation of the Hebrew (after all, "angels" is not a literal translation of "gods"). Rather, Hebrews 2:7 is a paraphrase of Psalm 8:5 that, while introducing a new understanding of it, DOES NOT CONTRADICT IT.>>> (Trinity, 52-53, emphasis added)

The only sense in which I denied that the LXX rendering of Psalm 8:5 was not "accurate" was that it was not a word-for-word translation. I specifically denied that Hebrews 2:7 contradicted or misused Psalm 8:5. Once again, Greg failed to give a balanced, fair presentation of what I actually said. That's 0 for 2!



STAFFORD:
And that's about 0 for 100 for you, as you continue to miss the point and distort the facts. Let's try again, shall we? First, when you say it is not "literal" or an "accurate word-for-word translation," you are wrong. From a formal equivalent standpoint it is true, but when it comes to presenting the literal, word-for-word translation of the SENSE of 'elohim in this passage, it is most certainly "literal" and "accurate." MY POINT is that this whole argument, presented by you, IS MEANINGLESS, for it completely misunderstands the nature of the LXX translation, particularly in this instance. Now, here is what I said:

<<FROM JWS DEFENDED, PAGES 188-189>>

Bowman objects to the view that references such as Psalm 8:5 teach that angels are "gods." Because this understanding presents such a problem to Trinitarian theology, Bowman is not so willing to view Psalm 8:5, or any other verse in the Bible for that matter, as a reference to angels as "gods" in a lesser but positive sense. His opinion is that these scriptures, if directed to angels at all, are references to angels as false gods, since the Bible teaches that there is only one true God. However, the fact is Psalm 8:5 is a reference to angels, not as false gods, but as gods of a secondary class. The inspired writer of Hebrews confirmed this in his quotation of the LXX rendering of Psalm 8:5 which calls the 'elohim "angels." (Heb 2:7, 9) Still, Bowman and others believe that translating 'elohim as "God" better captures the meaning of the Psalm. But this view is unacceptable for several reasons.

First, not only does Bowman's suggestion directly contradict the quotation in Hebrews 2:7, 9, but it is hardly the case that man is a "little lower" than God! While we are made in His image, being endowed with qualities such as love, justice, wisdom and knowledge, we are in no way a "little lower" than God. Also, we reject without hesitation Bowman's suggestion that the inspired writer of Hebrews 2:7, 9 would quote from an inaccurate translation of the Hebrew of Psalm 8:5. He argues that "`angels' is certainly not a literal translation of `gods.'" While it is true that "angels" is not the formal equivalent of "gods" (particularly in English), it is quite beside the point here. It is a well known fact among scholars that many books and sections of books of the LXX offer a more exegetical (interpretive) translation than other, more literal books.



<<END OF QUOTE---FOOTNOTES OMITTED>>

STAFFORD:
Now, notice: First I point out that Bowman objects to the view that 'elohim in Psalm 8:5 refers to angels. Next I point out that he would grant that it applies to angels only if they are viewed as false gods. Then I point out that the inspired writer of Hebrews DISAGREES with Bowman's view, by accepting the identification of the 'elohim in Psalm 8:5 as "angels." I state Bowman's preferred view of Psalm 8:5, namely, that it refers to God himself. I then point out that Bowman's view (which view, again, sees 'elohim in Psalm 8:5 as a reference to Almighty God) is unacceptable for the following reason: It is contradicted by the accepted identification of the 'elohim as "angels" in Hebrews 2:7, 9. Bowman claims that the fact that the author of Hebrews quoted the LXX somehow accounts for what he, at this point in his argument, views as an INACCURATE IDENTIFICATION OF THE 'elohim AS "ANGELS." Thus, since Bowman does not believe that Psalm 8:5 refers to angels, then, to him, such an identification would be INACCURATE! So, since Paul accepted this INACCURATE identification, then, in Bowman's view, Paul quoted an inaccurate translation.

That Bowman does not understand this means one of two things: 1) He does not understand the implications of his argument, or 2) he is perhaps too blinded by his zeal to defend an indefensible view of God that originated several hundred years after the Bible was written.



BOWMAN:
If ANGELOI ("angels," Heb. 2:7) is not a word-for-word substitution for ELOHIM ("gods" or "God"), then the Watchtower argument that angels ARE gods in a positive sense falls. Oddly enough, I can't find a single verse in the Bible that makes this assertion or its equivalent. As long as the THOUGHT of Hebrews 2:7 AS A WHOLE is in agreement with the thought of Psalm 8:5 as a whole, there is no contradiction between the two verses even on the assumption that the Hebrew ELOHIM refers to God and not to angels as gods.



STAFFORD:
It is a literal transfer of SENSE, Rob. You are the one who argued that it was not a word-for-word equivalent, as if this somehow supported your view. That is what I refuted in my book, by pointing out that you missed the point. You intimated that since 'elohim is not a literal translation on the word-level, then this somehow advances your point. It does not! You are also wrong in your first sentence above. The simple fact is the angels are called "gods" in Psalm 8:5. If this is true, then the trinitarian position crumbles. Of course, it crumbles on a number of other fronts, but this puts it to rest, also. Paul accepted the identification of 'elohim in Psalm 8:5 as ANGELS. He does NOT accept your view. Thus, you are at odds with Paul, and do not accept his approved identification of the 'elohim as "angels."



BOWMAN:
There is much more that I could say on this question, but I believe what has been presented here is sufficient to call into question Greg's claim to have shown that my view on this subject is unbiblical.



STAFFORD:
That's it?! You have nothing further you wish to offer? What else is there to say, Rob? Since you have not proven anything to support your view, maybe you could share with us those things that you are currently withholding?



BOWMAN:
I. DO THESE TEXTS CALL JESUS "SAVIOR" IN A SECONDARY SENSE?

I now turn to the surrounding language used for Jesus Christ in the context of him being called THEOS in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Before discussing Greg's general argument on this question, I wish to treat briefly his claim that the title "Savior" does not imply Christ's deity.

I had written:

"Earlier we argued that the two nouns 'God' and 'Savior' were so closely and regularly linked in the OT (specifically the Septuagint) that Jewish readers or Gentile Christians familiar with the OT would easily and naturally link the two in Titus 2:13 and apply them to one person. In the OT, of course, these two nouns when used together in the OT always refer to Yahweh (Deut. 32:15; 1 Sam. 10:19; Ps. 23:5 [Heb., 24:5]; 24:5 [25:5]; 26:1, 9 [27:1, 9]; 61:3, 7 [62:2, 6]; 64:6 [65:5]; 78:9 [79:9]; 94:1 [95:1]; Isa. 12:2; 17:10; 45:15, 21; 62:11; Mic. 7:7; Hab. 3:18)" (Bowman, 30).

Greg began his response with the following claim:

>>>First, Bowman forgets that we are not dealing exclusively with the nouns "God" and "Savior," but with "the great God" and "Savior Jesus Christ.">>> (Stafford, 30a)

This assertion is false, since I go on to cite a passage that calls Jehovah both "great God" and "Savior" in the same immediate context.



STAFFORD:
Bowman's assertion is false and misses the point. He fails to understand a rather simple point: "God" is used, in Titus 2:13, together with "great," and "Savior" is used together with "Jesus Christ." None of Bowman's examples have these same nouns and adjectives in the same verse! Was I somehow unclear about this? I think Bowman failed to see my point because he has a demonstrated problem of recognizing sense and reference. I am not trying to be mean, but factual. This has been a reoccurring problem since our discussion began. I mean, think about it, reread what I wrote above and compare it to his statement. The two do not match at all.



BOWMAN:
Moreover, I have shown that "Savior Jesus Christ" is not used as a separate semantical unit in these passages. Besides, in context I was discussing the significance of Jesus being called "Savior" not in isolation but as part of the expressions "the great God and Savior" and "our God and Savior," given that this is the correct exegesis of these two texts. It seems Greg is the one who has forgotten what was the issue.





STAFFORD:
That's a good one, Rob. Really, though, there is nothing funny about Bowman's misunderstandings on this point. Bowman has not shown what he thinks he has shown, as I have shown in my previous replies. "Savior" is without question restricted to "Jesus Christ." Whether "Jesus Christ" further defines "the great God" is another matter, and one which I dealt with in Part Four of my reply. But it still does not change the fact that "Savior" is restricted to "Jesus Christ" and can stand alone as either "Savior Jesus Christ" or "Savior, Jesus Christ." Bowman has not given the correct exegesis of this verse, and his view, regardless of translation, CANNOT be harmonized with the theology of Paul or any other Bible writer.



BOWMAN:
One stray point Greg makes that might be thought to call this conclusion into question should, however, be addressed. Greg emphasizes repeatedly that Jesus is presented in the NT as a Savior who was "sent" by the Father (Greg cites 1 John 4:14 to make this point). Of course, as a trinitarian I do not deny that the Father sent the Son, and in fact regard this point as essential to the doctrine of the Trinity. But in answer to Greg's argument, the NT never presents Jesus' status as Savior as a secondary, weaker, or lesser status than the status of God as Savior.



STAFFORD:
That is an unproven assumption. Based on the biblical use of SOTER and MOSHIA, the Father sends many to perform His work of salvation. The usage in the OT for human "saviors" is picked up in the NT and applied to Christ. Of course, since you redefine terms like "father," "son," "firstborn," "give," "greater," "head," and others, I don't expect that you would acknowledge this biblical distinction regarding "savior."



BOWMAN:
In fact, throughout Titus the apostle Paul alternates between referring to "God" as "our Savior" (Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) and Jesus Christ as "our Savior" (Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6), WITH NO INDICATION OF A DIFFERENCE IN SENSE. When we then recognize that Jesus Christ is called both "God" and "our Savior" in Titus 2:13, it is evident that Paul does not here differentiate Jesus' role as Savior as a subordinate or derivative sense from the role of God as Savior.



STAFFORD:
Of course, I refuted this notion in Part Five of my reply. Please see it for details. Bowman is here begging the question. In the fist-century Christian community Jesus was understood as a "sent-forth Savior" and the Father as the Provider of salvation. This is the clear biblical teaching on this subject. Thus, there most certainly is a different SENSE for the same term, when applied to the Father or the Son. The images that are called to mind when this term is used of either one of these BEINGS is not the same, as one was sent by the other, in providing salvation.



BOWMAN:
J. WHY IS OT LANGUAGE FOR JEHOVAH APPLIED TO JESUS?

We come, finally, to Greg's attempt to refute my argument that Jesus is not only called THEOS in a positive, affirmative sense in these two texts, but is also described in the larger context, especially in Titus 2:13-14, as if he were Jehovah. I had pointed out that Titus 2:14 applies the language of Psalm 129:8 LXX (130:8 Heb.), which speaks of Jehovah "redeeming Israel from all his lawless deeds," to Jesus Christ. This OT text is woven together in Titus 2:14 with Ezekiel 37:23, where Jehovah says that he "will deliver them from all their lawless deeds" and "purify them" to be his "people," and the OT texts that speak of Israel as "a people for Jehovah's own possession" (Ex. 19:5, etc.). All of this language, found in the OT applied exclusively to Jehovah, is applied in Titus 2:14 to Jesus Christ, along with the description "our great God and Savior," a description that in OT language also is applied only to Jehovah. In short, what the OT says Jehovah would do for himself - save and redeem and purify a people to be his own - the NT says Jesus Christ has done FOR HIMSELF (Bowman, 30-31).





STAFFORD:
That is because Jesus is the fulfillment of the Promises made by his God! (Micah 5:4) That is why we find passages applied to people like Solomon, later applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8-9 (see below). Many other examples of this sort could be given. The FACT is, though, Jesus was GIVEN possession of these people, to fulfill Jehovah's will. (John 17:6) That is why the people belong to Jehovah in Ezekiel 19:5, but to Christ in Titus 2:14 (see below for more on this issue). There is a transfer of ownership that is in accord with Jehovah's will for mankind. If you would put down the systematic theologies and stick to the Scriptures, you would not need me to point this out to you. But you did offer a reply to this point. Consider:



BOWMAN:
Greg's response is rather superficial. He argues that this can all be explained in terms of Jehovah "doing His works through the Son" and the Son coming "in the Father's name" (John 14:10; 5:43). This line of reasoning continues the false dichotomy that is basic to Watchtower theology: either the Son is God and acts independently of his Father, or the Father is acting through the Son and therefore the Son is less than God. As reasonable as this dichotomy must seem to Greg, it is unbiblical, since the Bible affirms both that Jesus is God (in the unqualified, highest sense, as in the texts we are considering) and that Jesus is the Son who came in his Father's name to do his will.



STAFFORD:
So, basically Bowman's answer is: Your wrong Greg and I (Bowman) am right. Bowman simply denies the force of the scriptures I cite, and does not deal with their implications at all. His argument is circular:

The texts Greg cites do not prove that Jesus is not God in the highest sense, because Jesus is God in the highest sense.

No, Rob, he is not. The Bible makes it clear that no one has seen God, but we have seen the only-begotten god. (John 1:18) Thus, they are not the same God. Also, Jehovah is the God of the Son, showing His superiority over the Son. It's simple, when you let the Bible speak, without adding post-biblical qualifications to it.



BOWMAN:
Moreover, Greg's argument cannot account for the fact that Titus 2:13-14 says that Jesus did these things to make a people for himself, using OT language that referred to Jehovah making a people for himself. To account for this Greg offers another explanation, namely, that the people belong to Jesus because the Father gave them to him (John 17:6). His argument runs into a serious problem, though, which is best seen by letting Greg speak for himself:

Greg:
>>>Notice that in John 17:6 Jesus says that the people whom the Father gave to him previously belonged to the Father, but now they belong to the Son. Well, if they are both Jehovah, then there was really no change of possession, as far as "God" is concerned. But here we can see that there is a change of possession, not in terms of the unbiblical distinction of "persons" in a biblically unknown "Godhead," but that Jehovah, of whom Ezekiel speaks, now gives the aforementioned "people" to His Son.>>>



BOWMAN:
Greg evidently posits this "change of possession" on the past tense verb in John 17:6, "they WERE yours." However, in verses 9-10 Jesus says to the Father, "for they ARE yours; and all things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine." Notice that they remain the Father's while at the same time belonging to the Son. This is not a "zero-sum" transference; the people belong to the Father and the Son equally and fully ("all things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine").

STAFFORD:
Obviously if the Father has the ability to "give" them to someone, then they always remain His to some degree. But you missed the verb upon which I was focused, and that is TO GIVE. We are discussing how they came to be possessed by Jesus, and the text is plain for all to see. They were GIVEN to Jesus. No one GAVE THEM to the Father. The Father has always had them, and He gave them to the Son, which is why Titus 2:14 says what it does. How is it that you missed this rather salient point?



BOWMAN:
If anything, Greg digs the hole a bit deeper when he writes:

>>>Ownership of the Christian congregation has been given to the Son, who fulfills his Father's will in relation to them. Even though the Christians belong to Christ, they are still spoken of as under the protection of the Father. (John 10:29)>>>

This is indeed stated in John 10:29, in the context of Jesus affirming that the protecting hand of the Father and the protecting hand of the Son are not two separate realities, because Jesus and the Father are ONE (John 10:30).



STAFFORD:
Of course they are ONE, Rob, JUST AS they and the disciples are ONE. (John 17:21) Was that the "deep hole" to which you were referring?



BOWMAN:
In general, Greg's strategy throughout this part of his critique was to splinter the various elements of Paul's glorious description of Jesus Christ into discrete parts and then claim that each one individually could be explained without identifying Jesus Christ as Jehovah. Let me review these quickly:

· Jesus may be called THEOS, but angels are called THEOI (a premise very much in dispute, and of dubious relevance to a text applying the singular THEOS to Jesus).



STAFFORD:
A singular is no different from a plural, if the sense is the same. In view of the fact that Jehovah is the God of angels (Ps. 136:2), including Jesus (Micah 5:4), the sense is the same in terms of being distinct from and subordinate to Jehovah (see above for further details).



BOWMAN:
· Jesus is called SÔTĘR, but so were the Israelite judges (but never in the same sense as God).



STAFFORD:
How do you know, Rob? What proof do you offer? None!



BOWMAN:
· We are to await Jesus' "epiphany," but that could be a double epiphany (even though the Bible never uses the word EPIPHANEIA or its cognates in that way).



STAFFORD:
And just how many times does the Bible use EPIPHANEIA for Jesus, Rob?



BOWMAN:
· Jesus is said to redeem and purify us as his people, which the OT said in the same language of Jehovah; but this just means that Jehovah redeemed and purified a people through Jesus and then gave that people to Jesus (even though this is not what Titus 2 says).



STAFFORD:
That is what the Bible says, Rob. Titus 2:14 is part of the Bible.



BOWMAN:
The problem with this reasoning is that it does not treat Titus 2:13-14 as a whole. Paul is giving titles to Jesus that in tandem are applied to Jehovah alone ("God" and "Savior"). One of these titles, in the singular, is never used in a positive sense of anyone but Jehovah ("God"). Paul uses these titles of the Father in the same context without any apparent shift in sense. And in this same context he describes Jesus doing what the OT says Jehovah would do for himself, without any of the qualifications that Greg would insinuate into the text. If we take all of these aspects of the passage as a whole, it is hard to resist the conclusion that Paul is writing about Jesus as if he were Jehovah. At the very least, it would be astonishingly careless of Paul to apply such language to Jesus so freely and unqualifiedly, if Paul did not believe that Jesus is Jehovah God.



STAFFORD:
What is "astonishingly careless" is to assume all of the above, which you do, without any proof to support the view you read into the text. All of your above contentions have been sufficiently refuted, and will continue to be, as they are unbiblical. I respect the fact that you are trying to defend a view that you hold dear, but if you truly want to know the God and Jesus of the Bible, then you must accept what the Bible says without pouring post- and unbiblical meanings into words.

Jehovah is the God of Jesus, who is himself an only-begotten god, who was given life by the Father, that others might live because of him, worshipping the Father in spirit and truth. (Micah 5:4; John 1:18; 4:24; 5:26; 6:56)

------------ADDENDUM-----------

Recently Rob Bowman posted an attempt to rid himself of Jesus' unqualified statement found in John 17:3. Obviously, for people who believe that the True God is three persons, Jesus' words to one person, the Father, "you are the only true God," are very disturbing. But if we want to worship God as He truly is, and honor His Son the way He intended, then we must have an accurate view of their relationship, not one based on post-biblical creeds that distorts the true distinction and relationship between the two greatest personages in the universe.

With this in mind, let us consider Bowman's attempt to get around Jesus' unqualified statement:

-------------------------------------------
True God vs. False Gods: A False Dilemma?
By Rob Bowman



There has been considerable discussion recently over an argument frequently used by trinitarians to prove that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the only true God. The argument may be stated as follows:

1. There is only one true THEOS (from Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 John 5:20; etc.).
2. Whatever is regarded as THEOS but is not a true THEOS is a false THEOS (from the law of excluded middle).
3. Jesus is THEOS and is not a false THEOS (from John 1:1, 18; etc.).
4. Therefore, Jesus is the only true THEOS (from [1], [2], and [3]).



STAFFORD:
Let me help Bowman out a bit here, as he continues to use biblical language in unbiblical ways. In #1, when he says there is only one true THEOS, he understands THEOS as a triune being. Sometimes he'll argue that he does not always have to use the term in that sense, but he does, unless he provides further qualification. For, you see, since, according to them, there is only one God in a positive sense, then every time the word God is used it must apply to the one that it denotes, which to them is a Trinity. Regarding #2, Bowman seems to forget about the "either/or fallacy," and he also fails to define what he means by "true" and "false." In #s 3 and 4 we have an example of the problem mentioned concerning #1: If there is only one THEOS, and that THEOS is triune, then, if Jesus is THEOS, then Jesus is triune, UNLESS Bowman is using THEOS in two different senses, which he fails to articulate, and for good reason. You see, since the Bible nowhere articulates Bowman's view, he tries to get away with using the simple terminology of Scripture (THEOS) without explaining to his readers/hearers that he is using the terms in a different sense.



BOWMAN:
Jehovah's Witnesses typically claim that this argument flies in the face of biblical evidence that creatures are honored in Scripture with the title "god" without being considered either false gods or the one true God. Specifically, they claim that the term "gods" is applied in Scripture to angels (ELOHIM, Ps. 8:5; 97:7; cf. ANGELOI in the LXX of these texts and in Heb. 2:7; 1:6), judges (ELOHIM, Ps. 82:6; THEOI, John 10:34), or God's representative, such as Moses (ELOHIM, Ex. 4:16; 7:1). Sometimes they also appeal to the fact that Satan is called THEOS (2 Cor. 4:4).



STAFFORD:
That's just one of the problems, Rob. The real problem is you are using THEOS in a sense different from the way the Bible uses it. Jehovah is the God of Jesus, just as He is the God of the angels. (Ps. 136:2; Micah 5:4) This fact alone removes the Trinity from the category of biblical teachings. Jesus is a certain kind of THEOS that the Father is not. --John 1:18.



BOWMAN:
First of all, may we agree that the ONLY way to attack the argument as stated above is to question premise (2)? Premises (1) and (3) are drawn from direct biblical statements and are not likely to be challenged by Jehovah's Witnesses.



STAFFORD:
Just a minute, Rob. You have a post-biblical view for THEOS as used in #1 and #3. So your whole argument is without biblical basis.



BOWMAN:
The conclusion (4) follows directly and inexorably from the three premises. Thus, the only reasonable way of disputing the conclusion would appear to be the dispute premise (2). Thus, for the biblical evidence cited by the Witnesses to have any bearing on the soundness of the argument presented above, it must call into question premise (2).



STAFFORD:
We talked about this before, but apparently Bowman has learned little if anything from our previous discussions.
We cannot determine the accuracy of your conclusion until we know in what sense you are using the term THEOS.



BOWMAN:
Now, as I have indicated premise (2) follows simply from the law of excluded middle. That is, it follows from an application of one of the three fundamental principles of deductive logic, specifically, the principle that whatever is not A is non-A. Although I grant that the law of excluded middle can be ABUSED, that does not mean that it has no valid USE. And in this case the application of the law in formulating premise (2) seems quite straightforward. Where the word "true" means real, genuine, authentic, or the like, the word "false" is properly regarded as its antonym (that is, whatever is not "true" is "false"). And there can be no denying that in Jeremiah 10:10, for example, the word "true" has this meaning of the opposite of "false." The premise therefore seems no more problematic than are any of the following statements:

· Whatever is regarded as Scripture but is not true Scripture is false Scripture.
· Whoever is regarded as a prophet but is not a true prophet is a false prophet.
· Whoever is regarded as a king but is not a true king is a false king.
· Any proposition that is not a true proposition is a false proposition.
· If this is not a true dilemma, it must be a false dilemma.



STAFFORD:
There is a significant problem with Bowman's reasoning on this matter. If "true" is A and "false" is B, then Bowman's argument runs like this: Whatever is non-A is B. But that is not accurate in terms of our discussion. He does not allow for C, D, E, etc. He wants you to think that the only viable option for non-A ("true") is B ("false"). This is known as a false dichotomy, and the rest of Bowman's argument suffers from it.



BOWMAN:
Notice that even where the precise connotation of "true" differs (as in the last two examples above) the application of the law of the excluded middle still holds. From a semantic standpoint, premise (2) is especially similar to the statements above using the titles "prophet" and "king." The main difference, of course, is that while the Bible never says there is only one prophet or one king, it does say there is only one God. In any case, these sentences illustrate the validity of the law of the excluded middle and its application in premise (2).

It seems to me, then, that we require rather strong reasons for setting aside premise (2), including some explanation as to why, contrary to what would appear to be the case, the law of excluded middle cannot be applied in this way.



STAFFORD:
Again, Bowman has narrowed the options to but two, when there are more. The fact is the Bible uses the word "true" in a sense other than "false," and it is this point that is so deadly to Trinitarianism, in view of John 17:3. Bowman knows the problem, but instead of embracing Scripture he argues against it, as follows:



BOWMAN:
Now, as I have noted, the Witnesses do supply some evidence that they think overturns premise (2), namely, texts where they say that the Bible refers to various creatures as "gods." However, it seems to me that this use of these texts calls into question, NOT PREMISE (2), BUT PREMISE (1). That is, what the Witnesses seem to be attempting to show from such passages as Exodus 4:16 and Psalm 82:6 is that there is more than one true THEOS. That is, if Moses truly is an ELOHIM, or a THEOS, and if the angels truly are THEOI, as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim, then it seems what they are denying is not the law of excluded middle but the biblical teaching that there is only one true God. For I see no difference between these two statements:

1. There is only one true THEOS.
1a. There is only one being that truly is THEOS.

If someone can argue persuasively that there is a substantive difference between these two propositions, I'm willing to be persuaded. But until that case can be made, I will continue to insist that if Moses, an angel, a judge, or any other creature is truly a THEOS, then it is not true that there is only one true THEOS.



STAFFORD:
Obviously Bowman will not be persuaded by anything that argues against trinitarianism. But the fact is the Bible uses true for things to contrast them, not necessarily with that which is false, but with that which is a semblance or copy of the reality belonging to that which is true. Consider this quote, from my book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended:



<<QUOTE>>

The Greek word translated "true" (alethinos) can have one of several meanings, depending on the context and usage of the author or speaker. According to BAGD, alethinos can mean: "genuine, real . . . Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real . . . true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies." To illustrate this meaning of a "reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies," consider John 1:9, where John says concerning Jesus, "The true light [to phos to alethinon] that gives light to every sort of man was about to come into the world" (compare 1Jo 2:8). Does this mean that Jesus' disciples (Mt 5:14) are "false" lights? No. It means they are not the original light, but copies of it, giving forth the light they received from Jesus.

Similarly, when Jesus contrasted himself, "the true bread from heaven [ton arton ek tou ouranou ton alethinon]," with the manna that God gave the Israelites, did this mean the manna was not really food? (Joh 6:32-33) Surely he meant the manna was not food in the far more excellent sense that his life-saving sacrifice (his flesh-Joh 6:51, 54-56) would prove to be. The manna, and other earthly foods, give only temporary sustenance; they are but a copy of the reality possessed by the real food God gives.

Finally, we note the contrast made in Hebrews 8 between the "true tent" (tes skenes tes alethines) in verse 2 and the typical tent God commanded Moses to make. (verse 5; 9:9) In all these texts alethinos is contrasted, not with something "false," but is used to describe that which is the archetype as opposed to that which is a copy of the original.

<<END OD QUOTE-FOOTNOTES OMITTED>>

STAFFORD:
Obviously, the contrast in Hebrews 8 is between the TRUE tent (A) and that which is not a true tent. But when we say that the earthly tent is non-A, does not automatically make it B (= "false")? To Bowman it apparently does, but he is out to prove his post-biblical theology regardless of the consequences. The fact is the earthly tent is not B, but what we might label C, that is, a copy of the true tent that exists in heaven. It is the same with Jesus, who is a copy of the only true God. (John 17:3; Heb. 1:3) Let's consider how Bowman tries to get around this:



BOWMAN:
I am aware that Jehovah's Witnesses argue that the Greek word ALĘTHINOS translated "true" in John 17:3 refers to the Father as the archetypal God, not as the only real or genuine God. For those who have not read my treatment of this argument before, allow me to explain why I don't find this argument to be consistent with the evidence.

1. Why, in the context of John 17, would Jesus speak of the Father as the archetypical God? With what typical "God" is the Father being contrasted? In John 6:32, the text most commonly cited to establish this meaning, Jesus explicitly contrasts the earthly bread, or manna, with himself as the heavenly manna. I don't see any such contrast even implied in John 17:3.



STAFFORD:
Look harder, Rob. He is being contrasted with ALL known gods. Why else would Jesus make that statement?



BOWMAN:
3.Jesus does (contrary to what is sometimes said by Jehovah's Witnesses) use ALĘTHINOS to mean "true" in contrast to "false" (see, for example, John 4:23, 37; possibly also 7:28). John in this Gospel also uses the word to mean "true" in contrast to "false" when he is not quoting Jesus directly (John 19:35). Thus, in three or four instances in John's Gospel ALĘTHINOS clearly means "true" in contrast to "false."



STAFFORD:
Actually, in John 4:23 Jesus is speaking of the worshippers themselves, not what or whom they are worshipping. Thus, the Samaritans copy the worship of the Jews, but the true worshippers will worship the Father (not Father, Son, and holy spirit) as the archetypical type of worship that should be imitated. The Samaritans did worship, but not in accordance with the true, archetypical pattern of worship set forth by the Law and in the prophets. You need to define "false" in this instance.

Uh, Rob, what false saying is being contrasted with the "true saying" in John 4:37?

In John 7:28 we have another reference to the Father as "true." What "false" beings are contrasted with the Father here?



BOWMAN:
3. There are only three instances of ALĘTHINOS in John being used where one might interpret the word to have the connotation of the archetype in contrast to the type. All three of these are in reference to Jesus as the true light (John 1:9), the true bread (John 6:32), and the true vine (John 15:1). I'm not sure that this is particularly helpful to the Jehovah's Witnesses' argument that Jehovah the Father alone is the archetypal God. Moreover, in John 1:9 "the true light" is probably in contrast to John the Baptist who was falsely regarded by some as the light (John 1:6-8). In the epistle the term "the true light" stands in contrast to the darkness of those who profess to be in the light but are not (1 John 2:8-9).



STAFFORD:
My, my…I hate to sound negative, but this is getting ridiculous. How far will you go, Rob? Does you preconceived view mean that much to you? Let me point out some HUGE problems with the above paragraph. 1) Bowman's response to the uses of ALETHINOS in John's Gospel is, "I'm not sure that this is particularly helpful to the Jehovah's Witnesses' argument that Jehovah the Father alone is the archetypal God." Oh, okay, Rob, now we get it. Actually, we don't. Go ahead and assume that your statement is not a serious threat to our position. 2) Rob then attempts to illustrate what he means (?) by focusing in on John 1:9, but notice what he says, "in John 1:9 `the true light' is probably in contrast to John the Baptist who was falsely regarded by some as the light (John 1:6-8)." Rob, how does a FALSE VIEW OF JOHN AS THE TRUE LIGHT equate to him BEING A FALSE LIGHT? The question is what kind of light was John and the disciples, not whether they were falsely VIEWED as the true light!

If I had not read it for myself I would not have believed such a terrible obfuscation of the facts were possible.



BOWMAN:
4. In the Book of Revelation the word is used ten times, always to mean "true" in contrast to "false" or "unreliable" (Rev. 3:7, 14; 6:10; 15:3; 16:7; 19:2, 9, 11; 21:5; 22:6).



STAFFORD:
Really? So, since Jesus is called the "true witness" does that mean his followers are "false witnesses"? If it means they are "true witnesses" then what is the difference between them and Jesus, if any? I don't see a contrast in Rev. 3:7, 6:10. Could you please elaborate on how you view the use of "true" in Rev. 15:3, 16:7, 19:2, 9, 11, 21:5 and 22:6 as being in contrast to that which is false or unreliable? Can there be gradations of reliability, or should we trust the words of God's faithful creations just as much as we would trust the words of God Himself? Still, as I state in my book, in John 17:3 and elsewhere we are not talking about "true" in terms of true or false, right or wrong. The Bible clearly outlines a use of "true" that is in contrast to copies made in the image of the archetype (see above).



BOWMAN:
5. In short, out of 8 occurrences in the Gospel of John, and 22 occurrences in John's writings total, the word ALĘTHINOS has the meaning Witnesses attribute to it no more than two (or, possibly, three) times. Thus, far from my proposed meaning being an unusual one in John, it is the Witnesses' proposed meaning that is highly unusual.



STAFFORD:
Here you go again, assuming you have proved something when you have done no such thing. Of course, this statistical approach is flawed anyway, as it does not account for the context or the peculiarities of the thing modified by "true." Can you do us a favor, Rob? Make a search of all the uses of "the God of" someone and tell us what consistent meaning emerges. Don't forget to include references like Psalm 136:2.



BOWMAN:
6. This means that we must look at how the same expression as a whole, "true God," is used, not just the word "true" in isolation. If we do that, the meaning "true" as opposed to "false" becomes established as the only viable view. In biblical usage the expression "the true God" contrasts the Lord with false gods, such as idols, or with false conceptions of God (2 Chron. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20).





STAFFORD:
What we must look for are uses of "true" in Scripture. Then, after we find the different uses, we choose the one that fits with the teaching of the text in the context of Scripture, not the teachings of the fourth and fifth centuries. The Bible clearly teaches that there are others called gods (Ps. 8:5; John 1:18), and that Jehovah is the God of these beings. (Ps. 136:2; Micah 5:4) Thus, since we know that "true" is used (notice Bowman did not consider the use of "true" Hebrews) to contrast an archetype with its copies, then it is obvious that "true," as used by Jesus in John 17:3, is meant to highlight Jehovah as unique, being the only one who is true among those called gods. The Bible specifically says, by the way, that Jesus is a copy of God, and thus he is NOT the archetype, nor eternal. --- Hebrews 1:3.



BOWMAN:
Again, my point is that citing Psalm 82:6 or any other verse to prove that there REALLY are other THEOI besides the Lord THEOS directly contradicts the Bible. Not only do we have the several texts that refer to the true God, and even the ONLY true God, but we have numerous texts that flatly affirm that there is ONE God, using the words EL, ELOHIM, and THEOS (Deut. 4:35, 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 14, 21-22; 46:9; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25). Why would the Bible say there is only one THEOS if there were actually in truth many?



STAFORD:
Because there is only one in the sense in which the Bible speaks. Why would Jesus call the Father the ONLY true God, if in fact that Son and the holy spirit are also the ONLY true God? Why would the Bible call the Father the "one God" if the one God were really the Father, Son and holy spirit? Nowhere does the Bible call the Son or the holy spirit the true God or the one God, but both terms are used of the Father, and RESTRICTED to Him by His Son. (John 17:3) I think your problem stems from your confusion over sense and reference and your desire to read post-biblical views into Scripture at all costs. Just accept what Jesus says Rob! (John 17:3) Join us in worshipping the Father in spirit and in truth! - John 4:24.



BOWMAN:
Now, given this line of reasoning, what should we say about the texts Jehovah's Witnesses cite to prove that there are creatures that are called "gods" but which are not false gods? Here I'll summarize a couple of points that I have made before.

1. In no biblical text is an individual creature honored positively with the singular title "God" (either in Hebrew or in Greek), unless we count texts that are referring to Jesus. This even includes the few OT texts that use the title "God" (EL or ELOHIM) typologically of the Davidic king in a way that looks forward to Jesus the Messiah (Ps. 45:6; Isa. 7:14; 9:6). Much of the OT uses language about David or his son that did not apply literally to them but did apply literally to David's descendant, Jesus (see Acts 2:25-35 for an explicit example). Ironically, in these OT texts the earthly David or Solomon is the "type" and JESUS CHRIST IS THE "ARCHETYPE"! Thus, David and Solomon were not actually being called "God," but the term was being applied to their descendant, Jesus, who REALLY IS GOD.



STAFFORD:
Of course, the plural form of "God" in Hebrew is more majestic than the singular, so Bowman's point misses the mark, particularly when you consider Judges 13:22. Bowman assumes that Ps. 45:6 does not apply in a literal sense to Solomon, but even if it did not, the text still uses "God," even in its final application in Hebrews 1:8-9, in a qualified sense, for the text tells us, "That is why God, your God [lit. `the God of you'] . . ."! Yes, if Jesus is called THEOS in Hebrews 1:8 (and Bowman merely assumes this), it is another QUALIFIED reference to Jesus as THEOS, as a copy of the archetype, his God, according to verse 3 and 9. How Bowman can arrive at his "JESUS IS THE ARCHETYPE" conclusion in view of these facts is amazing.

Bowman has shown us that trinitarians have no substantive defense for their position. Trinitarianism remains hopelessly unbiblical. This fact should be obvious to everyone, by now.

Greg Stafford

    Previous Top
© 1999 - 2007 Jehovah's Witnesses United. All rights reserved. Terms of Service
home-icon.gif (1K) Home:
About
Congregations
General News
Human Rights
Theocratese
Bookshelf
Study Tools
Site Search
Web Search
Webring
Contact
genexe-icon.gif (1K) EXEGESIS:
General
Greek
Hebrew
Patristic
Translation
Discussion
Study Links
genexe-icon.gif (1K) GENERAL:
Legal
Holocaust
Freedom
resources-icon.gif (1K) Resources:
Official
Defense
Trinity
Bloodless
Businesses