The Strange History of the Cross by Arthur Drews 1911

Buy my Kindle Book, The Strange History of Easter and the Christian Cross on Amazon for only $1.99 

The Strange History of the Christian Cross by Arthur Drews Ph.D 1911

In the whole of Christendom it passes as a settled matter that Jesus “died upon the cross”; but this has the shape, as it is usually represented among painters, of the so-called Latin cross, in which the horizontal crosspiece is shorter than the vertical beam. On what then does the opinion rest that the cross is the gibbet? The Evangelists themselves give us no information on this point. The Jews described the instrument which they made use of in executions by the expression “wood” or “tree.” Under this description it often occurs in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, in which the gibbet is rendered by xúlon, the same expression being also found in the Gospels. Usually, however, the gibbet is described as staurós (i.e., stake), so much so that staurós and xúlon pass for synonyms. The Latin translation of both these words is crux. By this the Romans understood any apparatus for the execution of men generally, without thinking, however, as a rule of anything else than a stake or gallows (patibulum, stipes) upon which, as Livy tells us, the delinquent was bound with chains or ropes and so delivered over to death. That the method of execution in Palestine differed in any way from this is not in any way shown. Among the Jews also the condemned used to be hanged upon a simple stake or beam, and exposed to a lingering death from heat, hunger, and thirst, as well as from the natural tension of his muscles. “To fasten to the cross” (stauroun, afigere cruci) accordingly does not mean either in East or West to crucify in our sense, but at first simply “to torture” or “martyr,” and later “to hang upon a stake or gallows.” And in this connection it appears that the piercing of hands and feet with nails, at least at the time at which the execution of Jesus is supposed to have occurred, was something quite unusual, if it was ever employed at all. The expressions prospassaleuein and proséloun, moreover, usually signify only to “fasten,” “to hang upon a nail,” but not at all “to nail to” in the special sense required.

There is not then the least occasion for assuming that according to original Christian views an exception to this mode of proceeding was made at the execution of Jesus. The only place in the Gospels where there is any mention of the “marks of the nails” (viz., John xx. 25) belongs, as does the whole Gospel, to a relatively later time, and appears, as does so much in John, as a mere strengthening and exaggeration of the original story. For example, Luke xxiv. 39, upon which John is based, does not speak at all of nail-marks, but merely of the marks of the wounds which the condemned must naturally have received as a consequence of being fastened to the stake. Accordingly the idea that Christ was “nailed” to the cross was in the earliest Christianity by no means the ruling one. Ambrose, for example, only speaks of the “cords” of the “cross” and the “ligatures of the passion” (“usque ad crucis laqueos ac retia passionis”), and consequently knew nothing of nails having been used in this case. If we consider that the “crucifixion” of Jesus corresponds to the hanging of Attis, Osiris, and so forth, and that the idea of the gibbeted gods of Nearer Asia called forth and fixed the Christian view; if we remember that Haman, the prototype of Jesus at the Purim feast, was also hanged upon a gallows, then it becomes doubly improbable that our present ideas on the matter correspond to the views of the early Christians. For although we have no direct picture of the hanging of those Gods, yet we possess representations of the execution of Marsyas by Apollo, in which the God has his rival hauled up on to a tree by ropes round his wrists, which have been bound together. But Marsyas, the inventor of the flute, the friend and guide of Cybele in the search for the lost Attis, is no other than the latter himself, or at any rate a personality very near akin to Attis. It is not difficult to conclude that Attis too, or the man who represented him in the rites, was hung in the same manner to the stake or tree-trunk and thus put to death. Thus it seems that originally the manner of death of the Jewish Messiah was imagined in the same way, and so the heathens too called the new God in scorn “the Hanged One.”

How, then, did the idea come into existence that Jesus did not die upon a simple gallows, but rather upon wood having the well-known form of the cross? It arose out of a misunderstanding, from considering as the same and mingling two ideas which were originally distinct but described by the same word wood, tree, xúlon, lignum, arbor. This word signifies, as we have already said, on the one hand indeed the stake or gallows (staurós, crux) upon which the criminal was executed; but the same word, corresponding to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, also referred to the “wood,” “the tree of life,” which was supposed to stand in Paradise. According to the Revelation of John it was to serve as food for the holy in the new Paradise to come, and it was honoured by the Christians as the “seal” and guarantee of their salvation under the form of the mystic cross or Tau.

In all private religious associations and secret cults of later antiquity the members made use of a secret sign of recognition or union. This they carried about in the form, in some cases, of wooden, bronze, or silver amulets hung round the neck or concealed beneath the clothes, in others woven in their garments, or tattooed upon the forehead, neck, breast, hands, &c. Among these signs was the cross, and it was usually described under the name “Tau,” after the letter of the old Phœnician alphabet. Such an application of the cross to mystic or religious ends reaches back into grey antiquity. From of old the cross was in use in the cult of the Egyptian Gods, especially of Isis and Horus. It was also found among the Assyrians and Persians, serving, as the pictures show, in part as the mark and ornament of distinguished persons, such as priests and kings, in part also as a religious attribute in the hands of the Gods and their worshippers. According to some it was the sign which Jahwe ordered the Israelites to paint upon their doors with the blood of the lamb when he sent the angel of death to destroy the first-born of their Egyptian oppressors. It played a similar part also in Isaiah and Ezekiel, when it was a question of separating the god-fearing Israelites from the crowd of other men whom Jahwe purposed to destroy. When the Israelites were pressed in battle by the Amalekites Moses is said to have been helped by Aaron and Hur to stretch out his arms in the shape of that magic sign, and thus to have rendered possible a victory for his people over their enemies. Among the other nations of antiquity also—the Greeks, Thracians, the Gaulish Druids, and so on—the Tau was applied in a similar manner to ritualistic and mystic ends. It appears as an ornament on the images of the most different divinities and heroes—e.g., Apollo, Dionysus, Demeter, Diana (the Phœnician Astarte). It is also found upon innumerable Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Phœnician coins, upon vases, pictures, jewellery, &c. In Alexandria the Christians found it chiselled upon the stone when the temple of Serapis was destroyed, in 391. In this temple Serapis himself was represented of superhuman size, with arms outstretched in the form of a cross, as though embracing the universe. In Rome the Vestal virgins wore the cross upon a ribbon round the neck. Indeed, it even served as an ornament upon the weapons of the Roman legions and upon the standards of the cavalry long before Constantine, by his well-known “vision,” gave occasion for its being expressly introduced under the form of the so-called “Monogram of Christ” into the army as a military sign. But in the North also we find the cross, not only in the shape of the hooked-cross and the three-armed cross (Triskele), but also in the form of Thor’s hammer, upon runic, stones, weapons, utensils, ornaments, amulets, &c. And when the heathens of the North, as Snorre informs us, marked themselves in the hour of death with a spear, they scratched upon their bodies one of the sacred signs that has been mentioned, in doing which they dedicated themselves to God.

That here we have to do with a sun symbol is easily recognised wherever the simple, equally-armed cross appears duplicated with an oblique cross having the same point of intersection with it,

or where it has the shape of a perpendicular which is cut symmetrically by two other lines crossing one another,

And as a matter of fact this symbol of a sun shedding its rays is found upon numberless coins and illustrations, in which it is obvious that a reference to the sun is intended—e.g., upon the coins of the Egyptian Ptolemies, of the city Gods of Rome, of Augustus and the Flavian Cæsars. Here the Sun sign appears to have been adopted as a consequence of the fusing of the Sun Cult of later antiquity with the cult of the Emperor. Much more frequent, however, is the simple Tau, sometimes, indeed, in a shape with equal limbs (Greek cross), +, sometimes with the upright below lengthened (Latin cross), t, sometimes upright, sometimes oblique (St. Andrew’s cross), X, sometimes, again, like the Greek letter Tau, T, sometimes in the shape of the so-called mirror of Venus, in which the ring plainly refers to the sun, sometimes in that of the Svastika, or hooked cross, [swastika], sometimes with, sometimes without a circle, and so on. A form made up of the oblique and the ring cross of the Egyptians (so-called Key of the Nile) is the cross known under the description of the “Monogram of Christ”. According to the legend it was first employed by Constantine on account of his “vision”; and ecclesiastical writers, especially on the Catholic side, try even to-day to support this view, in spite of all facts. For this form of the cross also is clearly of pre-Christian origin, and had its prototype in the ancient Bactrian Labarum cross, as is found, for example, upon the coins of the Bactrian king Hippostratos (about 130 B.C.), of the Egyptian Ptolemies, of Mithridates, upon Attic Tetradrachma, &c.

After the careful investigations on this subject which have been undertaken by French savants especially, there can be no doubt that we have before us in this so-called “seal” of the Gods and religious personalities a symbol of the creative force of nature, of the resurrection and the new life, a pledge of divine protection in this world and of everlasting blessedness after. As such it appears upon heathen sarcophagi and tombstones; and on this account in some cases their Christian character is too quickly assumed. Moreover, the cross has been preserved in present-day musical notation as the sign of the raising of a note, while its use in the Mysteries and private Cult associations is authority for the statement that precisely in these the thought of a new-birth and resurrection in company with the hero of the association or God of the union stood as a central point of faith. One understands the painful feeling of the Christians at the fact that the private sign used by them and their special sacraments were in use among all the secret cults of antiquity. They could explain this to themselves only as the work of spiteful dæmons and an evil imitation of Christian usages on the heathens’ part. In reality the symbol of the cross is much older than Christianity; and, indeed, the sign of the cross is found associated in a special manner with the cult of divinities of nature or life with its alternations of birth, blossoming, and decay, representatives of the fertility and creative force of nature, the Light-Gods and Sun-Gods subjected to death and triumphing victoriously over it. It is only as such, as Gods who died and rose again, that they were divinities of the soul and so of the Mysteries and pious fraternities. The idea of the soul, however, is found everywhere in nature religion considered as being connected with the warmth of life and with fire, just as the sun was honoured as the highest divinity and, so to speak, as the visible manifestation of the world-soul solely on account of its fiery nature. Should not, then, the symbol of life, which in its developed form plainly refers to the sun, in its simplest and original shape point to the fire, this “earliest phenomenon” of all religious worship?

Naturally, indeed, different views can be held as to what the various forms of the cross betoken. Thus, for example, according to Burnouf, Schliemann, and others, the Svastika represents the “fire’s cradle,” i.e., the pith of the wood, from which in oldest times in the point of intersection of the two arms the fire was produced by whirling round an inserted stick. On the other hand, according to the view most widespread at the present day, it simply symbolises the twirling movement when making the fire, and on this, too, rests its application as symbol of the sun’s course. Hochart considers the cross in the shape of the Greek Tau as the inserted stick (pramantha) of the Vedic priests. Very likely, however, this form arose simply through the identity of sound between the Greek and Phœnician letter, the Greeks having interchanged the like-sounding foreign letter with their own Tau. That the cross generally speaking, however, is connected with the Fire Cult, and that both parts of the sign originally contained a reference to the pieces of wood (aranî) of which in most ancient times use was made to produce fire, has been placed beyond doubt by the investigations into the matter. This is confirmed inter alia by the use of the symbol in the worship of the Vestals, the Roman fire-priestesses. This is the explanation of the wide extent of the symbol of the cross. Not only among the peoples of antiquity and in Europe, but also in Asia among the Indians and Chinese, it is in use from ancient times. In America, too, among the Mexicans and Incas, it played a part in worship long before the arrival of Europeans. In the same way is explained the close association of that symbol with the priestly office and kingly dignity, which was itself often connected with that office; similarly the intimate relations between the sign of the cross and the Gods of Fertility, Vegetation, and Seasons. For all of these were, as representatives of the warmth of life and the soul’s breath, in their deepest nature, Fire-Gods special aspects, closer characterisations and connections of that one divinity, of whom the oldest form known to us is in the Vedic Agni, and in whose service the priests of all peoples and times grew to their overwhelming strength. Julius Firmicus Maternus was thus quite right when he declared that Mithras, whose followers bore the sign of the cross upon their foreheads and at their communion-meal had the cross, imprinted upon the holy loaf, before their eyes, was an ancient Fire-God. But if the cross is the symbol of fire and also of the Mediator God, who brings earth and heaven into connection, then the reason can be found why Plato in the “Timæus” makes the World Soul in the form of a Chi, i.e., an oblique cross, stretched between heaven and earth. Then, indeed, it is not strange that the Christians of the first century regarded as an inspiration of the devil Plato’s doctrine of the mediatory office of the “double-natured” World Soul, which, according to that philosopher, was formed from a mixture of ideal and sensible matter. It is not strange that a Justin, “the most foolish of the Christian fathers” (Robertson), could actually assert that Plato borrowed the idea, as well as that of a world-conflagration, from—Moses.

In the Old Testament also, as was shown above, we meet the cross. Here it served as a mark of recognition and distinction of the God-fearing Israelites from the heathen, and as a magic sign. With a similar significance we meet it again in the New Testament. In the Revelation of John it appears as “the seal (sphragís) of the living God.” By it here, too, are the chosen ones of Israel marked off from the rest of mankind whom judgment has overtaken. At the same time, it is said that this sign is imprinted upon the foreheads of the inhabitants of the true Jerusalem. In the Epistles to the Galatians and Ephesians it is said of the believers in Christ that they were “sealed” before God by the mystic sign upon their foreheads, hands, or feet. The sign thus serves them as a pledge of redemption. Again, in the Epistle of Barnabas ix. 8, the cross contained in the letter T is expressly interpreted as (charis) “grace.” Under the form of the Greek Tau the cross appears during the first century of the Christian era, especially among the Christians in Egypt, and according to many was a symbol of Adonis or Tammuz. Now since the expressions xúlon and staurós, lignum and crux, were of double significance and denoted both the “seal” of religious salvation and the gibbet, it is possible that the two different significations became of themselves identical in the minds of the faithful. This was possible so much the more easily since the biblical account placed by the side of the “tree of life” in Paradise a “tree of death,” the fateful “tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” which was supposed to have been accountable for the death of Adam and so of the whole of mankind, and as such made the comparison possible with the wood upon which Jesus died. We meet again with a special form of the cross in the old Assyrian or Babylonian so-called “mystical tree of mystery,” which was also a symbol of life. Among the Persians it appears to have had some reference to the holy Haoma tree; and here, too, as well as in India, where it was connected with the Bodhi tree, under which Sakyamuni by his devout humility rose to be a Buddha, it was represented in the artificial shape of a many-armed cross.

One and the same word, then (xúlon, crux), betokens both the gibbet and the pledge of life. Christ himself appears as the true “Tree of Life,” as the original of that miraculous tree the sight of which gave life to the first man in Paradise, which will be the food of the blessed in the world to come, and is represented symbolically by the mystical cross. It was easy to unite the ideas connected with those expressions, to look upon the “seal” of Christ (to semeion tou staurou, signum crucis) as the cross upon which he suffered, and vice-versâ, and to ascribe to the “wood” upon which Jesus is supposed to have died, the shape of the mystic sign, the Tau, or cross. The heathens had been accustomed to regard the stake upon which their Gods were hanged both as the representative of the God in question and the symbol of life and fruitfulness. For example, the stake furnished with four oblique sticks (like a telegraph post), which went by the name of the tatu, tat, dad, or ded and was planted at the feast of Osiris in Egypt, often had a rough picture of the God painted upon it, as also the pine-tree trunk of Attis, in which connection the idea that the seed contained in the cones of the rock-pine from of old had served men as food, while the sap found in them was prepared into an intoxicating drink (Soma), played its part. We are reminded also of the Germanic custom of the planting of the may-tree. This was not only a symbol of the Spring God, but also represented the life bestowed by him. In the same way the cross did not appear to the Christians originally as the form of the gibbet upon which God died, but as “the tree of life,” the symbol of the new birth and redemption. Since, however, the word for the mystical sign was identical with the expression for the gibbet, the double meaning led to the gibbet of Jesus being looked upon as the symbol of life and redemption, and the idea of the gibbet was mingled with that of the cross, the shape of the latter being imagined for the former. As Justin in his conversation with the Jew Trypho informs us, the Jews used to run a spit lengthwise through the whole body of the Paschal lamb and another cross-wise through its breast, upon which the forefeet were fastened, so that the two spits made the shape of a cross. This was to them obviously not a symbol of execution but rather the sign of reconcilement with Jahwe and of the new life thereon depending. For the Christians, however, who compared their Saviour with the Paschal lamb, this may have been an additional cause for the above-mentioned commingling of ideas, and this may have strengthened them in the conception that their God died upon the “cross.” The Phrygians, moreover, according to Firmicus Maternus, at the Spring Feast of Attis, used to fasten a ram or lamb at the foot of the fig-tree trunk on which the image of their God was hung.

In agreement with this view is the fact that the earliest representations of Christ in connection with the cross had for their subject not the suffering and crucified, but the miraculous Saviour triumphing over sickness and death. He appeared as a youthful God with the Book of the Law, the Gospel, in his hand, the lamb at his feet, the cross upon his head or in his right hand, just as the heathen Gods, a Jupiter, or some crowned ruler, used to be depicted with a cross-shaped sceptre. Or Jesus’ head was placed before the cross, and this in the orb of the sun—and exactly at the point of intersection of the arms of the cross, thus at the place where one otherwise finds the lamb. Even the Church, probably with a right feeling of the identity of Agnus and Agni, and in order to remove the connection of ideas therein contained, in the year 692, by the Quinisext Synod (in Trullo), forbade the pictures of the lamb and required the representation to be of the Saviour’s human shape. In spite of this even then they did not represent “the Crucified” in the present-day sense of the word, but portrayed Christ in the form of one standing before the cross praying with outstretched arms. Or he was shown risen from the grave, or standing upon the Gospels at the foot of the cross, out of this arising later the support for the feet in the pictures of him crucified. Here he was represented with open eyes, with his head encircled by the sun’s orb. In all of these different representations accordingly the cross only brought again before the eyes in symbolical form what was at the same time expressed by the figure of Christ standing at the cross, just as at the feasts of Osiris or Attis the God was doubly represented, both in his true shape (as image or puppet) and in the symbolical form of the Jatu or pine-tree trunk. This mode of depicting Christ lasted a long while, even though as early as the fifth or sixth century mention is made of crucifixion, and in arbitrary interpretation of Psa. xxii. 17 he was depicted with the marks of the nails. For, as has been said, “crux” betokens both the gibbet and the mystical sign, and the marks of the nails served to symbolise the Saviour’s triumph over pain and death. An ivory plate in the British Museum in London, mentioned and copied by Kraus, is considered the oldest representation of a crucifixion in our present sense. It is said to be of fifth-century origin. This assignment of date is, however, just as uncertain as the other, according to which the miniature from the Syrian Gospel manuscript of the monk Rabula of the monastery of Zagba in Mesopotamia, which also has the crucifixion for subject and is to be found in the Bibliotheca Laurenziana at Florence, is assigned to the year 586. In any case, as a general rule until the eleventh century it was not the dead but the living Christ who was depicted before or on the cross. Consequently an illustration in the Bibliotheca Laurenziana of about the date 1060 is considered as the first certain example of a dead crucified Christ.

The conception of Christ being put to death upon the cross is, comparatively speaking, a late one. The connection of Christ with the cross was originally not a reproduction of the manner of his death. It rather symbolises, as in the ancient Mysteries, precisely the reverse—the victory of the Christian Cult-God over death—the idea of resurrection and life. Hence it is obvious that the above-mentioned juxtaposition of the cross and lamb must have expressed the same idea. Here, too, the cross was originally only the symbol of fire and life. The lamb encircled by the sun’s orb refers to the ceremonial burning of the lamb at the spring equinox as an expiatory sacrifice and as a pledge of a new life. It appears the more plainly to be a figure of Agni (Agnus), since it is usually placed exactly at the point of intersection of the two arms—that is, at the place whence the divine spark first issued at the kindling of the fire with the two aranî.

 

This Kindle Book is now available on Amazon

Visit a listing for this book on this blog by clicking here.

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks click here

Nebuchadnezzar the Bible Werewolf by Christopher Wordsworth 1871

Nebuchadnezzar the Werewolf by Christopher Wordsworth 1871

See also Over 100 Books on Vampires & Werewolves on DVDrom

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

Nebuchadnezzar's Disease. — let a beast's heart be given unto him] The celebrated physician, Dr. Mead (in his work "Medica Sacra," on the Diseases mentioned in Scripture, p. 59) observes that the ancients called persons affected with this species of madness lycanthropoi or cynanthropoi, because they went abroad imitating wolves or dogs, opening the sepulchres of the dead. See Aetius, Lib. Med. vi. Paul AEgineta, iii. 16. In like manner, the daughters of Proetus are related to have been affected, who, as Virgil says (Eclog. vi. 48), "implerunt falsis mugitibus agros." Servius there observes, that Juno possessed their minds with such a species of madness, that, fancying themselves cows, they ran into the fields, bellowed, and fled from the plough. These, according to Ovid (Met. xv. 326), the physician Melampus

"per carmen et herbas
Eripuit furiis."

Schenkins (Observ. Med. de Lycanthropia) records a remarkable instance of it in a husbandman of Padua, who, imagining himself a wolf, attacked and killed several persons in the fields; and when he was taken, persevered in declaring himself a wolf. On this form of insanity, called Lycanthropy,—in which men suppose themselves to be wolves or other wild beasts, and act accordingly,—the reader may refer to the interesting details collected by Hengstenberg, 91, 92; Trusen, Krankheiten, 1853; and especially Dr. Pusey, p. 425, who thus writes:—

"It is now conceded that the madness of Nebuchadnezzar agrees with the description of a rare sort of disease, called Lycanthropy, of which our earliest notice is in a Greek medical writer of the 4th century after our Lord, in which the sufferer retains his consciousness in other respects, but imagines himself to be changed into some animal, and acts, up to a certain point, in conformity with that persuasion.

Buy my published Kindle book on Amazon for only 1.99

Visit the listing for this ebook here

"Marcellus (4th cent.) mentions two sorts, 'They who are seized by the kynanthropic or lycanthropic disease, in the month of February go forth by night, imitating in all things wolves or dogs, and until day especially live near tombs.' The disease is one from which there have been recoveries. Mercurialis says, 'The disease is horrible, yet not destructive to life, even if it last for months; nay, I have read that it has been thoroughly cured after years.'

"The remarkable expressions, his heart was made like the beast's, let a beast's heart be given to him, fit most naturally with this form of disease. The rest of the description would be in conformity with this, that Nebuchadnezzar, when affected with this disease, ate grass as an ox, and allowed his hair and nails to grow unshorn and unpared, as if he was the animal. The growth of the nails described is exactly that which modern physiologists have stated to be their growth when so neglected. His nails, Daniel says, were like birds' claws. 'The nails,' says Kolliker, 'so long as they are cut, grow unremittingly; when this is omitted, their growth is confined. In this case, and in the people of Eastern Asia, the nails become 1 1/2 or 2 inches long (among the Chinese, according to Hamilton, 2 inches), and curve round the fingers and ends of the toes.' The principles which regulate the excessive growth of hair, are, Dr. Rolleston tells me, less ascertained. Both being, I believe, called excremental, the excessive growth of both would probably be simultaneous. But both may have been the result of personal neglect, which is so strangely humiliating a part of a most distressing form of mental disease, and which I have seen as the result of disappointed pride.

Join my Facebook Group

"The expression however, Let a beast's heart be given unto him, may only signify the privation of the characteristic of man, reason, as the king wrote of himself, my reason returned unto me. And there is a distinct form of insanity, in which the eating of grass is one of the characteristic features. In many classes of the insane, the eminent Commissioner of the Board of Lunacy for Scotland, Dr. Browne, informs me, the eating garbage, excrement, even grass, is a symptom of general debasement and of perverted appetites.

"Dr. Browne tells me, as the result of the experience of above 30 years, - My opinion is, that of all mental powers or conditions, the idea of personal identity is but rarely enfeebled, and that it is never extinguished. The Ego and Non-Ego may be confused. The Ego however continues to preserve the personality. All the Angels, Devils, Dukes, Lords, Kings, "gods many," that I have had under my care, remained what they were before they became Angels, Dukes, &e., in a sense, and even nominally. I have seen a man, declaring himself the Saviour, or St. Paul, sign himself James Thomson, and attend worship as regularly as if the notion of divinity had never entered into his head.

"'I think it probable,—because consistent with experience in similar forms of mental affection,—that Nebuchadnezzar retained a perfect consciousness that he was Nebuchadnezzar, during the whole course of his degradation, and while he ate "grass as oxen," and that he may have prayed fervently that the cup might pass from him.

"'A very large proportion of the insane pray, and to the living God, and in the words supplied at their mother's knee or by Mother Church, and this whatever may be the form or extent of the alienation under which they laboured, and whatever the transformation, in the light of their own delusions, they may have undergone. There is no doubt that the sincerity and the devotional feeling is as strong in these worshippers as in the sane. I do not say that all madmen pray, or can pray; but, as you suppose, monomaniacs, and melancholies, chronic maniacs, and ements (in vast numbers), the hallucinated, &c. Those of the Edinburgh School of Philosophy, and educated medical men, would not, I conceive, take any exception to the view which I have given, because the very conception of partial insanity involves the possibility of the sentiment of devotion and the recognition of a Supreme Being remaining intact, while other powers are diseased.'"—Dr. Pusey.

I have been favoured with the following communication on this subject by an eminent person who enjoys the highest reputation for his skill in the treatment of lunaties—E. Palmer, Esq., M.D., of the Lincolnshire County Asylum, at Bracebridge, near Lincoln:—

"The enclosed description of the epidemic outbreak of Lycanthropy in France in the l6th century is taken from Esquirol, who is a very trustworthy writer. M. Calmeil, whose book "De la Folie, &c.," Paris, 1845, I send, your lordship will find gives full and authentic particulars of several cases occurring in the epidemic in the Jura, at Do1e and other places; and in Friedreich (a German treatise on the Literary History of Pathology, Wurzburg, 1830), p. 23, numerous references to the older literature of the subject in the works on Lycanthropy by Mei (Viteb. 1650), Muller (Lips. 1673), Nifanius (Giess. 1664), De Nyand, Sallzmann, Wolfeshusius, and Wolfius, 1666.

"It very commonly occurs that patients on their recovery from insanity have a full recollection of their sayings and doings, and of all that happened to them during their attack, which, of course, implies that during the attack they were conscious of their condition. In the case of Nebuchadnezzar, it was not until 'the end of the days'—or, as may be supposed, at the first dawn of intelligence, when partially lycanthropical and partially self-conscious, and in a state somewhat resembling that of a person awakening from a dream—that he lifted up his eyes unto heaven, being probably not yet rational enough to offer up a prayer in words, but still so far conscious as to be able dimly to perceive his identity. But when his understanding returned to him, there came back not only a recollection of his sin and the decree of the Most High, but also a vivid reminiscence of all the circumstances of his abasement amongst the beasts of the field; and he at once acknowledged the power and dominion of God."

"The amazing malady which possessed Nebuchadnezzar, known scientifically as Lycanthropy, is presented in a simple and natural way. The disease is well known in the sad annals of the human mind and attested by scientific examination. With it is associated the primitive werewolf superstition, which may have its rationalistic support in the actual frenzies of the human kind. Even if the essence of the story were true, that Nebuchadnezzar was so afflicted, after the manner of ’geniuses’ and of many royal persons, as George III of England and Otho of Bavaria, corroboration of it can hardly ever be expected from archaeology, for royal families do not leave memorials of such frailties. The alleged malady is not an impossibility." ~Montgomery 1927

Visit A Tribute to my Beloved Dog Teddy

Buy my published Kindle book on Amazon for only 1.99

Visit the listing for this ebook here

My Response to: Misleading Revisions in the New World Translation

My Response to _Misleading Revisions in the New World Translation_

You will find this webpage on many sites, including http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/mislead.htm

According to the site: "References to actual Hebrew and Greek words are derived from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Thomas Nelson, c. 1990), the Greek-English New Testament (Christianity Today, c. 1975) and Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (McDonald, unabridged ed., n.d.)" As we will see, he has made little use of the above.

Genesis 1:2

"Spirit of God" changed to "God's active force."

The revision modifies the original noun with a more impersonal form as the JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit.

Response: Since Mr. Bjorklund uses Vine's Expository Dictionary and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance I will too. If you look up SPIRIT(ruah 7307) you will see that it means "breath; air; strength; courage; temper; Spirit." As we can see, spirit often denotes a force of impersonal action or power. In keeping with this other Bibles render Genesis 1:2 as: "a mighty wind swept over the waters." New American Bible; "a divine wind sweeping over the waters." New Jerusalem Bible
"and the power of God was moving over the water." Good News Bible-TEV see also RSV mg and NEB

Exodus 3:14

"I am" changed to "I shall prove to be."

The revision clouds the connection between God's self proclaimed title and Jesus' proclamation of being the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus.

Response: Strong's says of HAYAH(1961) to exist.i.e., be or become, come to pass. Vine's says of Exodus 3:14," this revelation seems to emphasize that the God who made the covenant is the God who kept the covenant. So Ex. 3:14 is more than a statement of identity...it is a declaration of divine control of things.
You will notice also that at Ex. 3:12 the same word is used(hayah) but there it is rendered I WILL BE, but 2 verses later the NIV and NASB use I AM for the same word, and most bibles give I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE as a variant reading in the margins. Who is miseading who I wonder?

Numbers 1:52

"Under his own standard" changed to "by his [three-tribe] division."

The Hebrew word degal translated as "standard" literally means flag or banner. Since the JWs regard saluting a flag as an act of idolatry, the text has been altered according to their doctrinal bias. (Same revision found in Num. 2:2, 3, 10, 18, 25; 10: 14, 18, 22, 25.)

Response: Yes, Strong's does give flag, standard or banner as a meaning for DEGEL, but like
McClintock and Strong's Cyclopædia says after discussing the Hebrew words used: "Neither of them, however, expresses the idea which 'standard' conveys to our minds, viz. a flag." At Song of Solomon 6:4; 10 a form of DEGEL is used to describe a division of the heavenly armies (constellations), Here, GEORGE ATHAS, Dept of Semitic Studies, University of Sydney says, "This would also fit the context in which DEGEL implies a division of an army. A constellation would certainly make sense if it seen as both something you look up at, and something which is an ordered division of the starry host."
So the Hebrew word used here can also mean "division of an army". And we know that they are divided into 3 tribes by reading Numbers 2:3-8
See also New American Bible

Isaiah 43:10

"Nor will there be one after me" changed to "after me there continued to be none."

The original future tense of the verb indicates that there will never be another being sharing in God's divinity. The altered tense suggests credibility to the JW doctrine of Jesus' becoming a "mighty god" while still being less than Jehovah in nature. (See the John 1: I discussion below for another expression of this JW distortion.)

Response: I think this is reaching a bit on Mr. Bjorklund's part, as both carry the same meaning to me. Smith & Goodspeed has the same word order, in fact many different versions do not read as is stated by Mr. Bjorklund above.

Ecclesiastes 12:7

"The spirit returns" changed to "the spirit itself returns."

The passage indicates the return of a human spirit to God after death. Since the JWs believe in an unconscious state after death, "itself' has been inserted to suggest a more impersonal reference to spirit.

Response: As we have seen above, SPIRIT can also mean "breath or wind". There is no personification here as the NAB, NRSV, Good News Bible-TEV, NEB mg, Tanakh, and CEV all use "breath" here instead of "spirit". See also Ps. 146:4 It should also be noted that SPIRIT in Greek is neuter, while in Hebrew it is feminine.
Feel free to check the KJV at Rom 8:16, 26 for more of the "Spirit itself".

Matthew 2:11

"Bowed down and worshipped him" changed to "did obeisance to it"

The JWs evade recognizing Jesus as worthy of worship as a divine being by altering the form of honor that he receives from men and angels. The Greek word proskuneo literally means "worship." The use of "obeisance" is a NWT adaptation. (Same revision found in Matt. 8:2; 9:18, 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; 15:19; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6.)

Response: The greek word used here, proskuneo, is not the highest form of worship, that is reserved for latreuo(Phil 3:3, Acts 7:42, 24:14). Vine's Expository Reference explains proskuneo as "to make obeisance, do reverence to." It is used of a man(Matt 18:26) and to God and a King at the same time(1 Chronicles 29:20 LXX), to the Dragon in revelations(Rev.13:4), to the Beast(Rev.13:4, 8, 12; 14:9,11), the image of the Beast(Rev 13:15, 14:11), to Demons(Rev. 9:20), and idols(Acts 7:43). See also NEB, Young, Byington, NJB, Goodspeed, Newcome, REB, 20th Cent, Schonfield, Confraternity, Douay and Kleist&Lilly.

Matthew 5:19

"Least in the kingdom of heaven" changed to "least in relation to the kingdom of the heaven."

The passage indicates that a disobedient believer who sins can still find forgiveness and eternal life. The JWs believe heaven is reserved for only 144,000 specially designated servants of God. The revision suggests more separation between these groups through a status hierarchy.

Response: Mr. Bjorklund no doubt feels that "least" here is the same as the one used in Matthew 11:11, but they aren't. The NIV and the NASB uses "least" in both cases, even though 2 different greek words are used here. The NWT differentiates between the 2 scriptures, making it superior in this regard.

Matthew 25:46

"Eternal punishment" changed to "everlasting cutting-off."

The Greek word kolasis translated "punishment" indicates continuous torment, but the NWT revision suggests "termination," as the JWs promote the doctrine of annihilationism regarding condemned souls.

Response: KOLASIS does not indicate continous torment, and any quick look at Strong's and Vine's will tell you that. In fact it comes from the greek word KOLAZO which means to cut off or prune. The Emphatic Diaglott also uses the phrase "cutting off" and it gives the explanation that most versions confuse KOLASIN with BASINOS conveying the meaning of "torment". It goes on further to say that KOLAZOO "which signifies ,1. to cut off, as lopping off branches of trees, to prune, 2. To restrain, to repress.....3, to punish, to chastise. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment." p.106
Interestingly, The New Testament in Modern English, By Ferrar Fenton has "into a long correction."

Mark 1:4

"Baptism of repentance" changed to "baptism [in symbol] of repentance."

Nothing in the original Greek text justifies the insertion of "in symbol." The revision undermines the significance of John the Baptist's ministry, the Jewish meaning of baptism and the Christian sacrament of baptism in contrast to the more regimented JW baptism requirements.

Response: John baptized "those repenting for forgiveness of sins. . . . they were baptized by him in the Jordan river, openly confessing their sins." (Mark 1:4, 5) This does not mean that baptism itself washed away sins. As Acts 19:4 shows, according to various modern translations: "John baptized with the baptism of those repenting." "John's baptism was a baptism in token of repentance." (Smith&Goodspeed) "John baptized with a baptism that was an expression of repentance." (Williams NT) John's baptism, then, was a token or symbol of a natural Jew's having repented for sins against the law covenant. Hence John's baptism prepared these repentant persons for the Messiah. So the NWT uses internal evidence to render as it does, and indicates interpolation by means of brackets(interpolation is a common practise in all translations as it is used to complete a thought.)

Luke 12:8

"Acknowledges me" changed to "confesses union with me."

The addition of "union" suggest something more than what the original Greek actually states and adds further credibility to the NWT distortion presented in John 6:56 below.

Response: W.E. Vine's says of HOMOLOGEO in reference to Luke 12:8 that the nature of the "confession" is determined by the context. The succeeding verses talk of denial as an antithesis to the preceeding verse. At Luke 22:58 it talks of Peter's denial as being part of something...hence, in union with something. That is why the Good News Bible_TEV says of Luke 12:8, "those who declare publicly that they belong to me."
According to Eugene Nida in Bible Translating (p.57), “The Gospels alone contain more than 700 ambiguous readings in which the Greek may be translated one of two ways.”

Luke 23:43

'Today you will be with me" changed to "I tell you today, You will be with me."

Jesus assured the thief on the cross that their spirits would soon enter the spiritual/heavenly realm together. As the JWs reject the belief in the conscious survival of the human spirit after death, their revision suggests that "today" deals with the time of the statement rather than the relocation of their spirits.

Response: The original languages did not have commas, so it is left up to the translator to determine where to put the comma. In the book How To Enjoy The Bible by E. W. Bullinger, it states, "The word 'verily'[truly] points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the importance of what is about to be said. The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered marked the wonderful faith of the dying malefactor; and the Lord referred to this by connecting the word 'to-day' with 'I say.' 'Verily, I say unto to thee this day.' This day, when all seems lost, and there is no hope; this day, when instead of reigning I am about to die. This day, I say to thee, 'Thou shalt be with me in paradise.'
'I say unto thee this day' was the common Hebrew idiom for emphasizing the occasion of making a solemn statement."(see Deut. iv. 26, 39, 40; v. 1; vi. 6; vii.11; viii. 1; 11, 19; ix. 3; x. 13; xi. 2, 8, 13, 26, 27, 28, 32; xiii. 18; xv. 5; xix. 9; xxvi. 3, 16, 18; xxvii. 1, 4, 10; xxviii. 1, 13, 14, 15;  xxix. 12; xxx. 2, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19; xxxii. 46). p. 48  5th ed. 1921
 See also Syriac versions of the Bible, along with Rotherham, Concordant Literal NT and The Riverside New Testament. Below is the Vatican Manuscript 1209 (one of the oldest surviving mss) and they have placed the comma similarly to the NWT.

John 1:1

"Word was God" changed to "Word was a god."

The JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the deity of Jesus. The revision asserts that Jesus was someone other than God Himself.

Response: If you look at the greek, the first use of the word THEOS(God) is not the same as the second in this sentence. That is why many different Bibles also do not render the above verse as
the "Word was God".See also:
In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word. (Interlinear Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott)
Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"
Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god
Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine
Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god
New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"
Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine
Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature
Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"
Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos
Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine
Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was
Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was
Madsen, 1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine Being"
Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos]
Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].
Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine
Being/being]
Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word]
Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind]
Pffflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind]
Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word]
Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]
Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word)
Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God]
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"
Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word]

John 1:12

"Believe" changed to "exercise faith."

The orthodox Christian doctrine of spiritual justification and rebirth before God by belief in Jesus is in conflict with the JW doctrine of salvation by works (i.e., obedience to their organization). The revision attempts to describe salvation as a continuous process rather than a radical encounter and transition (Same revision found in John 3:16, 18; 6:29; Rom. 4:3, 10:4, 9, 10.)

Response: Strong's definition of this greek word(PISTEUO 4100) is "to have faith". What is beleiving if it is not "exercising faith?" This is why the NWT is such an excellent complement to any Bible library. The Amplified Bible renders this verse as "believe in-adhere to, trust in and rely on-his name."

John 6:56

"Remains in me" changed to "remains in union with me."

The mystical union between the individual human spirit and the Spirit of Jesus is obscured by restructuring "in" with a compound form. The substitution implies more separation between a Christian and Jesus. (Same revision found in John 14:20; Rom. 8:1, 2, 10; 12:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 1:13*; 2:10, 13, 15, 21, 22; 3:6; Col. 1:14*, 16*, 27; 2:6, 10*, 11, 12*; 3:3; 1 Thes. 4:16; 5:18; 1 John 3:24; 4:4; 5:20. Verses with an asterisk (*) indicate where the revision uses "by means of" or "in relationship to" rather than "in union with.")

Response: Look up 1722 in Strong's and you will see that this word (EN) has upwards of about 40 different meanings. While UNION isn't specifically mentioned it does fit the parameters mentioned(in, above, on, by means of, against, about, altogether etc). The NWT has compounded all these words and come up with UNION which is an improvement since Jesus is not physically IN us. Smith&Goodspeed, REB, Simple English Bible, Moffatt and the NEB use some of the other words included. But isn't the NWT a literal Bible. Yes it is. The King James Version and the New American Standard Bible are also very literal Bibles, but if you look at Philippians 1:30, the KJV(and NASB) interpolates to be before the word me(EN), even though to be is not in the original Greek. The translators have done this to complete the thought  and this is acceptable.
Incidentally, the Good News Bible-Today's English Version also uses the word "union" in conjunction with EN at Ephesians 1:3, 4, 11; 2:6, 10, 13, 15, 22 etc

John 8:58

"I am" changed to "I have been."

Same intent as described in Exodus 3:14 above.

Response: As we have seen above, Exodus 3:14 has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus and it has been misinterpreted to fit an errant theology. But let us look this up in Strong's. Eimi(1510) carries the meaning(according to Strong's) as "I exist", "am", "have been" or "was."
Examples: John 14:9: "Have I been (EIMI) so long with you." NASB
Ac.13:7: "He was (EIMI) with Sergius Paulus."

John 14:17

"Beholds him or knows him" changed to "beholds it or knows it."

The revision ignores the context of the pronoun with the Comforter role in the preceding verse to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.

Response: The Greek word used here is AUTOS(Strong's 846) which can also mean IT (John 15:2), ITSELF (John 21:25), THAT , THERE, THEM and SHE. Now let us consider the context. John 14:17 speaks of the Spirit of Truth. Are we to believe that a concept such as Truth has a shadowy personality that will live on after it dies? Of course not. Us we have seen above, the word SPIRIT, according to Strong's and Vine's also means BREATH, WIND, BLOW etc. There is nothing wrong with either rendering. It should also be noted that SPIRIT in Greek is neuter, while in Hebrew it is feminine. English nouns do not have gender, but many translators will add masculine references to the Spirit to add personality.

John 17:5

"Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you" changed to "glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you."

The original text reflects the shared deity of God the Father and Jesus before the creation of the world, but the revision suggests different natures as implied by different states of glory.

Response: The Greek word used (twice in the Greek text) here is PARA(3844) which means "beside, at, or in the vicinity of(see Strong's). See also Byington, 20th Cent NT, Jewish NT, Knox, Wuest, and Beck.

Acts 2:17

"Pour out my Spirit" changed to "pour out some of my spirit."

The revision evades recognition of the Holy Spirit and His activity at Pentecost by suggesting an impersonal force activated to a more limited degree by God.

Response: How a person can be "poured out" is beyond me, but again, as we have seen above, the original words for SPIRIT, as used in the Bible(RUAH, PSUCHE) can also mean BREATH, WIND etc. Certainly the context here cries out for an impersonal force. Incidentally, the original Greek renders this passage "I will pour out of my spirit on all flesh." In keeping with the original Greek, Byington, New English Bible, Weymouth margin, and the NAB read similarly to the NWT.

Acts 2:42

"Breaking of bread" changed to "taking of meals."

The passage demonstrates the frequency of the communion sacrament among the earliest Christians. The revision is an attempt to disguise this practice as the JWs teach that communion is reserved for only the 144,000 special saints. (Same revision found in Acts 20:7.)

Response: It is not an attempt to disguise anything as the literal rendering "breaking of bread" is mentioned in the footnotes and in the KIT Greek Interlinear. The term is merely an ancient way of saying "eating". If the passage truly demonstrates the frequency of the communion sacrament, then why is wine not mentioned? Beck and the Good News Bible-TEV read similarly to the NWT.

Acts 4:12

"Be saved" changed to "get saved." The revision avoids recognizing that an individual commitment to Jesus provides immediate and complete salvation, as the JWs believe in an alternative salvation as prescribed by their organization. (Same revision found in Acts 16:30-31.)

Response: If you read the context(which is something I highly recommend for any of these missives), you will notice that the meaning has not changed. In fact, the meaning has not changed for any of the scriptures mentioned on this page. Did you know that the Moffatt Bible, along with Weymouth, Living Bible, NEB, TEV, Schonfield, Byington, NLT, CEV, BBE, Kleist&Lilly, 20th Cent NT also do not read "be saved?" That is because the Greek word used here is SOZO(4982) and it means "to save". So context has alot of bearing how the word is translated. Please read the list of how this word is used in Vine's Expository Dictionary.

Acts 10:36

"Lord of all" changed to "Lord of all [others]."

The revision suggests that even though Jesus is highly honored, he is still one among many of God's created beings. (Similar revisions found in Rom. 8:32; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1: 16-17.)

Response: We are going to start of by looking at some other scriptures where this is done.

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)

Luke 11:42
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)
"and of every [other] vegetables." NWT
"and all the other herbs." TEV
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version

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?
"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Christian Literature" by F. Blass and A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the Greek to omit the word "other".
Interestingly, the KJV has added the word "other" 67 times in places where it is not in the original languages. The Revised Standard Version has done this 100 times, and the NRSV over 30 times in their NT.

Romans 2:29

"By the Spirit" changed to "by spirit."

Although the definite article 'the" does not literally appear in the Greek, it is implied by the form that (pneuma) appears in. The revision, however, translates pneuma in a more abstract form to evade the reality of the Holy Spirit. (Same revision found in Rom. 15:19; Eph. 2:22; 3:5; Titus 3:5; James 2:26; 2 Peter 1:21.)

Response: Byington, Schonfield, RSV, 20th Cent NT, New Berkeley Version, Emphatic Diaglott, God's Word, Moffatt, Smith&Goodspeed, Lamsa, REB, Phillips, NRSV and many others do not use the article "the" here. Perhaps they are trying to evade the reality of the holy spirit also?

Romans 8:23a

"Have the firstfruits of the Spirit" changed to "have the firstfruits, namely the spirit."

This represents another form of disguising the separate personality of the Holy Spirit as in Rom. 2:29 above. The original text refers to the derivatives of the Spirit, but the revision identifies the spirit as a derivative.

Response: It should be noted right here that few Bibles would add up to this site's expectations. The translation process is not as cut and dried as he would like to think. Let us look at other Bibles that refer to "the spirit as a derivative."
God's Word, "we have the Spirit as the first of God's gifts."
New English Bible, "to whom the Spirit is given as firstfruits."
New Life NT "We have the Holy Spirit as the first of God's gift to us."
See also Knox, Moffatt, Smith&Goodspeed and REB.
Other Bibles refer to the spirit as a "foretaste to the future" here.

Romans 8:23b

"The redemption of our bodies" changed to "the release from our bodies by ransom."

This revision avoids the suggestion that there is continuity of either body or soul after death. Their teaching that the soul ceases to exist at the death of the body precludes the ownership of, or relationship to, a body that must be redeemed.

Response: I am still waiting for this site to use their Vine's Expository Dictionary or Strong's Words. Redemption, in this instance, according to Vine's(Strong's 629) defines APOLUTROSIS as "a releasing, for(i.e., on payment of) a ransom."

Romans 8:28

"All things" changed to "all his works." The revision undermines the sovereignty of God by suggesting that He controls only the things He is directly involved in doing.

Response: Perhaps a lesson in biblical Greek might help. The word "things" may be implied...but it is not in the actual Greek. See also NJB, Smith&Goodspeed, REB, Byington, NEB, Barclay etc. In fact there are variant readings of this verse, as in the RSV, NRSV and the footnotes that accompany them. Why? A word for word reading of the Greek text has "all (things) works together the God into good." The translator makes what he believes is the best choice, and this verse in Romans is especially difficult since you can pick up 5 different versions and get 5 different renderings. The meaning of the chapter has not changed though, and neither is "all things" that different from "all his works."

Romans 8:29

"Those God foreknew" changed to "those whom he gave his first recognition."

The revision obscures the nature of God's knowledge and power as a first recognition may or may not be foreknowledge.

Response: Again, another weak attempt. The above sentence admits that it "may or may not be foreknowledge" Any example on this page "may or may not be" one thing or another. Many other Bible translations do not use "foreknew" here, and the 20th Century NT and Smith&Goodspeed also use the word FIRST.

Romans 9:5

"Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!" changed to "Christ, [sprang] according to the flesh: God who is over all, [be] blessed forever."

The direction proclamation that Christ is God is obscured by the altered text.

Response: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: "It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, 'Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God."-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), translated from German, Vol. 2, p. 80.

It is amazing to me that people use this as proof of Jesus' Almightyhood since many Bible versions read similarly to the NWT. The following have also watered down any reference to Jesus was God in this verse. RSV, Moffatt, NEB, Goodspeed , TEV, KJV, NASB, NIV ftn, ASV, Young's, NAB etc etc etc. Again, I have the following from the Vatican Ms 1209, and again, it agrees with the NWT:

Romans 10:13

"Lord" changed to "Jehovah."

This revision obscures the fact that the Lord referred to in verse 13 is the same Lord called Jesus in verse 9. Since the JWs reject the deity of Jesus, the revision is made accordingly.

The Greek word, kurios, translated "Lord" has been revised to "Jehovah" over 200 times in the NWT. The JWs insist that this is the only valid title for God, even though Greek-speaking Jews used "Lord" and "God" in place of "Yahweh" (the source of "Jehovah") throughout their Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Bible contains dozens of names for God other than Lord, Yahweh, or Jehovah.

Response: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 512) says: "Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the G[ree]k text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D."

Professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia, U.S.A., stated: "When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations." (Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978, page 14)

Does the Bible really contain dozens of names for God? Absolutely not. Many people refer to a list of titles that are shared by others. The one name that is most often mentioned in the originals is Jehovah/Yahweh(about 6823 times). Most Bible versions and Translations have removed this name completely and replaced it with a Title (usually LORD or GOD). This site would no doubt like it if the NWT did the same.

Romans 13:1

"Authorities that exist have been established by God" changed to "authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God."

Since the JW regard saluting a flag, military service and similar forms of submission to government as idolatry, they have added words to the text to weaken the proclaimed authority of government.

Response: Fact is, if you look at 20 different translations, you might 20 different readings of this scripture. This phrase comes from the Greek TASSO(5021) which, according to Strong's, means "to arrange in an orderly manner", but it depends on the tense of the verb. It seems, that according to this, the NWT is closer to the meaning than most.
See also Emphatic Diaglott, God's Word, Byington, Jewish N.T., TEV, Rotherham, Beck, The Message, CEV, Amplified etc.

1 Corinthians 6:19

"Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit" changed to "the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy spirit."

To avoid recognition of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the revision modifies "body" to a more collective form in harmony with the opposing JW doctrine.

Response: In 1Co 6:18 the apostle Paul warns: "Flee from fornication. Every other sin which a man may commit is outside his body, but he that practices fornication is sinning against his own body." Here he refers to misuse of one's fleshly organism. Then in 1Co 6 v. 19, 20 he is reminding them that as a group they occupy a special place in God's purpose. It is not the body of just one member of the congregation/church that is the temple, but he says: "Do you not know that the body of you people is the temple of the holy spirit within you which you have from God?" This use of the expression "body of you people" is in agreement with the statement in 1 Corinthians 10:17: "Because there is one loaf, we, although many, are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf." The use of the word YOU in capital letters denotes that the original Greek uses this word in a plural sense.

1 Corinthians 10:4

"The Rock was Christ" changed to "that rock-mass meant the Christ."

The passage depicts the preincarnate Jesus exhibiting his divine nature by being present many centuries earlier. This revision tries to conceal his eternal nature with a more figurative interpretation of "the Rock."

Response: A quick look at Vine's and Strongs will tell you that the Greek word PETRA means "a mass of rock".  Nuff said.

1 Corinthians 12:11

"As he determines" changed to "as it wills."

The NWT finds many ways to disguise the personality of the Holy Spirit. In this case the third person pronoun exercising individual conscience and will is replaced with an impersonal pronoun.

Response: There actually is no gender here. It could also literally be rendered "having willed."

1 Corinthians 14:14-16

"Spirit" changed to "[gift of the] spirit."

Like several other Biblical passages, this one indicates the distinctive presence of the human spirit as distinguished from the mind and body. The JWs evade these distinctions and try to disguise them with related revisions.

Response: If you open an NASB or a KJV to 1 Corinthians 14 you will notice at verses 1 and 12 that the word "gifts" is in italics. Why? Because this word is not in the original Greek. But the translators felt the need to interpolate the word "gift" to complete the thought. This is required. The NWT translators did the same as the 14th chapter of 1 Cor. deals with the "spiritual gifts" [hence: GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT] such as speaking in tongues and prophesying.

1 Corinthians 15:2

"By this gospel you are saved" changed to "through which YOU are also being saved."

Similar to the Acts 16:30 revision above, this one again obscures the completeness of salvation by grace. The JW's salvation exists as an extended process ("being saved") with the outcome being uncertain until final judgment before Jehovah.

Response: One needs only to compare this scripture with the one at Acts 2:47(NIV, NASB) to get a similar reading. That is why the NRSV, Barclay, NAB, Jewish NT, Emphatic Diaglott, 20th Cent NT etc read the same as the NWT.

Galatians 6:18

"Your spirit" changed to "the spirit YOU [show]."

Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision above, this one attempts to obscure the reality of the individual human spirit by presenting it more as an attitude of action than an entity.

Response: It might be a stronger argument to complain about those Bibles that don't even mention "spirit" at all in this instance, like the REB, 20th Cent. NT, CEV, NLT and the Living Bible. It obviously is not referring to an entity if this is an allowable practice of translation among trinitarian scholars.

Philippians 1:23

"To depart and be with Christ" changed to "the releasing and the being with Christ."

Paul's eagerness indicates that the believer's spirit goes immediately into Christ's presence at death. The revision suggests that death and being with Christ are two separate steps in an extended process, as the JWs believe in soul sleep (i.e., the unconscious state of the human spirit awaiting the resurrection).

Response: Vine's explains ANALUO as "to unloose, undo", and he explains it metaphorically as "...the unyoking of baggage animals". I think the NWT has handled this marvelously.

Colossians 1:19

"His fullness" changed to "fullness."

The definite Greek article (to), translated "his," indicates that Jesus shares the Father's divine nature as also shown in Col. 2:9. The revisions evade the truth by concealing the similarity of the two passages.

Response: No! "His fullness" is used in the NIV and a few paraphrases, but most standard and literal Bibles do not use "His Fullness".

Colossians 2:9

"The fullness of deity" changed to "the fullness of the divine quality."

The Greek theotes, translated "deity," literally means divine essence or divinity. As the JWs reject the divine nature of Jesus, a revision is inserted to suggest that Jesus is limited to only divine-like characteristics.

Response: The NWT does not reject the divine nature of the son. Even the NWT calls him the "only-begotten god" (John 1:18, see also NASB). Since this site admits THEOTES can employ varying examples of the word "divine", other Bibles such as the Good News Bible, Schonfield, Lattimore read similarly to the NWT.

I Timothy 4:1

"The Spirit" changed to "the inspired utterance."

This revision attempts to obscure the reality and activity of the Holy Spirit by representing it as a message instead of an entity. (Similar revisions found in 1 John 4:1, 3, 6 with "expression" being utilized in place of "utterance.")

Response: The expression 'inspired utterance' is within the PNEUMA's range of meaning, as Thayer's clearly show. See Thayer's Lexicon & Knox at 1Timothy and 1 John 4 in Williams NT, Smith&Goodspeed, 20 Cent NT, Barclay, for readings similar to the NWT.

Titus 2:13

"Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" changed to "the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus."

Similar to the Rom. 9:5 revision shown above, a distinct proclamation of Jesus as God is obscured by the altered text. (Similar rewording also found in 2 Peter 1:1.)

Response: Many translations differ as to how this should be rendered. The NAB, Geneva, KJV, Moffatt, ASV and more read similar to the NWT. Other Bibles have the alternative reading in the margin.  Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: "I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle's way of writing."-(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.
See also 2Peter 1:2; 1Timothy 1:1,2; 2:5; 6:13; 2Timothy 1:1,2; 4:1; Titus 1:1; 3:6

Hebrews 1:8

"Your throne, 0 God" changed to "God is your throne."

The revision avoids addressing the Son, Jesus, as God to validate the JWs' rejection of his divine nature.

Response: Again, many Bibles offer the alternative reading in the margin. Why? This is a quote from Psalms 45:6(7) where it is addressed to King Solomon originally. Was King Solomon almighty God? No! But he could be addressed as such, and this is in keeping with Biblical idiom. Moses was referred to as "god". So were the angels(Ps 8:5; 97:7; 103:1), judges (Ps 82) etc. "For the author(of Hebrews), the Son was the first-born, the apostle of God, the reflection of God's glory, and the stamp of his nature (1:3, 6), but he was not God himself." The Anchor Bible with Commentary by G. W. Buchanan.

Hebrews 9:14

"The eternal Spirit" changed to "an everlasting spirit."

Similar to the Rom. 2:29 revision above, the switching of the article before the adjective represents the work of the Holy Spirit in a more indirect/ impersonal manner.

Response: And again, see the other Bible versions that do similarly at Rom. 2:29 above.

Hebrews 12:28

"We are receiving a kingdom" changed to "we are to receive a kingdom."

An orthodox Christian understanding of the Kingdom recognizes it as primarily established through Jesus' victorious death, then further through post-resurrection displays of his power, and perpetually through the addition of new believers into God's family. The JWs teach that Jesus' Kingdom did not begin until his invisible return in 1914. The form of the Greek word for "receiving" (paralambano) implies a current condition, but the revision suggests a future event according to the JW doctrine.

Response: I am to receive a raise...or...I am receiving a raise. There really is no difference. Thankfully this nonsense is just about over.

Revelation 3:14

"Ruler of God's creation" changed to "beginning of the creation by God."

The altered prepositions distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created being.

Response: Who changed WHAT here since many older translations have always used "beginning." The Greek word ARCHE can have other meanings besides "beginning", but when it is followed by the same kind of expression (genitive) as it does in Rev 3:14, it has the meaning of a beginning or the first part of something. Below are some examples from the KJV:
Matt 24:8 All these [are] the beginning of sorrows.
Mark 13:19  from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time
John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galile
Phil 4:15 in the beginning of the gospel
Heb 3:14 if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end
Heb 7:3 having neither beginning of days
2 Peter 3:4 having neither beginning of days

The rest of this page deals with more examples of the "spirit". I have provided a few examples of my own:
"Spirit" NASB Romans 8:6
"spiritual" NKJB Romans 8:6
"mystically" NASB Rev. 11:8
"Spiritually" KJV Rev. 11:8
"symbolic" NAB Rev. 11:8
"prophetically" NRSV Rev. 11:8

In John 3:8 PNUEMA is mentioned twice in the same scripture. The first time it is translated "wind", the second time "spirit".

"the spirit of his mouth" KJV, NWT 2 Thess 2:8
"the breath of his mouth" NASB

There are tons more, but I think you get the drift. It is up to the translator to decide what word best fits, and not all translations agree on the point of how to translate SPIRIT, but all the above fall under the guidelines and allowances for the Greek word PNEUMA.

Should we always Translate as Literal as the Original language(Hebrew or Greek)? Obviously this site and others would say yes. "He[the translator] thinks that as long as he keeps the "same" words he cannot be too far wrong with the meaning. Instead, what he has done is not translation at all- he has put a new, and therefore wrong message in the bible. Whenever this happens, the problem has become very serious indeed." Norman Mundhenk, What Translation are you Using, The Bible Translator, Oct 1974, pp 419,420

For instance, in 1 Samuel 24:3 the NWT uses the phrase "ease nature" while the original has "cover his feet". Is this is a mistranslation? After all the New World Translation is supposed to be literal Bible. But other literal Bibles such as the NKJV and the NASB also do not use the words "cover his feet". They use "relieve himself." This follows the original meaning better and it could be seen as an improvement.

Paganism, Plato and the Trinity Doctrine by Marie Sinclair (Countess of Caithness)1876

It is generally, although erroneously, supposed that the doctrine of the Trinity is of Christian origin. Nearly every nation of antiquity possessed a similar doctrine. St. Jerome testifies unequivocally, "All the ancient nations believed in the Trinity." In the ceremonies of initiation into the Egyptian Mysteries, the candidate, after undergoing the severest trials of courage and fortitude, is conducted in the middle of the night, by a gallery filled with mummies awaiting the hour of resurrection, before the triple statue of Osisis, Isis, and Horus, where, bending the knee, he was made to pronounce the most solemn obligation never to reveal to the uninitiated the sacred mystery of that sanctuary, nor any of the knowledge there acquired. The Puranas, one of the Hindoo Bibles of more than 3,000 years ago, contain the following passage: "O ye three Lords! know that I recognise only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations." The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, becoming manifest to him, replied, "Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one." Hence the triangle was adopted by all the ancient nations as a symbol of the Deity, embracing in Himself the three stages of time—past, present, and future.

Three was considered among all the pagan nations as the chief of the mystical numbers, because, as Aristotle remarks, it contains within itself a beginning, a middle, and an end. Hence we find it designating some of the attributes of almost all the pagan gods. The thunder-bolt of Jove was three-forked; the sceptre of Neptune was a trident; Cerberus, the dog of Pluto, was three-headed. In Freemasonry the number three is the most important and universal in its application of all the mystic numbers. (Lexicon of Freemasonry.)

["If the number three is sacred among Masons, the number nine, or three times three, is scarcely less so. The Pythagoreans, remarking that this number has the power of always reproducing itself by multiplication, considered it an emblem of matter, which, though continually changing its form, is never annihilated. Thus:—

It was also consecrated to the spheres, because the circumference of a sphere is 360 degrees, and 3 and 6 and o are equal to 9. In Freemasonry 9 derives its value from its being the product of 3 multiplied into itself; consequently in Masonic language the number 9 is always denoted by the expression 3 times 3. For a similar reason 27, which is 3 times 9, and 81, which is 9 times 9, are esteemed as sacred numbers." (Lexicon of Freemasonry.)]

No writer ever avowed or taught a belief in any tenet of religious faith more fully or plainly than Plato sets forth the doctrine of the Trinity in his Phaedon, written four hundred years B.C. His first term for the Trinity was in Greek: 1, Agathon, the Supreme God or Father; 2, the Logos, which is the Greek term for the Word; and 3, Psyche, which the Greek Lexicon defines to mean "soul, spirit, or ghost." In this exposition of the Trinity adopted by the Greeks, and published four hundred years B.C., we have the identical doctrine of the Christian Church. In the Platonic or Grecian Trinity, the first person was considered the planner of the work of creation, the second person the Creator, and the third person the Spirit, which moved upon the face of the waters in the first chapter of Genesis, and infused life into the mighty deep at creation; who presided at the baptism of Christ as it had done at his conception or generation, and as it does at the incarnation and re-incarnation of all men.

Mr. Basnage quotes a Christian writer of the fifth century as declaring the Athenian sage Plato marvellously anticipated one of the most important and mysterious doctrines of the Christian religion; but had that Christian writer known anything about the ancient religions of the world he lived in, he would not have marvelled that Plato should have taught a doctrine that was as old as revealed religion itself, and which Plato had probably derived, either directly or indirectly, from Hindoo writers. The oldest form of the Trinity that we know of is found in the Brahminical system, the terms of which are: 1, Brahma, the Father or Supreme God; 2, Vishnu, the Incarnate Word or Creator; 3, Siva, the Spirit of God or Holy Breath, which, in the Buddhist traditions, moved on the face of the waters at creation, and imparted life and vitality into everything created. In Psalm xxxiii. 6, we read, "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them, by the breath of his mouth." In Genesis ii. 7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of lives, and man became a living soul."

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

Plus:

    "Many of the early Christians, in turn, found peculiar attractions in the doctrines of Plato, and employed them as weapons for the defense and extension of Christianity, or cast the truths of Christianity in a Platonic mold. The doctrines of the Logos [Greek for "the Word"] and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who, if not trained in the schools, were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy, particularly in its Jewish-Alexandrian form."

Hastings' Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics explains:

    "Christianity took over from Greek philosophy, and to some extent developed independently, the profound and fruitful idea of the distinction between time and eternity, and between becoming and being. First clearly stated by Parmenides, c. 500 B.C. . . . , it is worked out in considerable detail by Plato, c. 390 B.C., especially in his Phædrus and Symposium."

"Christian theology," notes the Encyclopædia Britannica, "took the Neoplatonic metaphysics of substance as well as its doctrine of [essences, or natures] as the departure point for interpreting the relationship of the 'Father' to the 'Son.'"
What, though, did Jesus mean when he said, "I and the Father are one"? J. H. Bernard, D.D., states in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John:
"A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel . . . , and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here; but to press the words so as to make them indicate identity of ousia [Greek for "substance," "essence"], is to introduce thoughts which were not present to the theologians of the first century."—Compare John 5:18, 19; 14:9, 23; 17:11, 22.

Interestingly, the French encyclopedia Alpha states: "Most religious traditions or philosophical systems set forth ternary [threefold] groups or triads that correspond to primeval forces or to aspects of the supreme God." Another French work points to the Greek philosopher Plato (of about 427 to 347 B.C.E.) and declares:

    "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."—Dictionnaire Lachatre.

Naturally, Christendom's priests and clergymen, for the most part, deny this pagan philosophical origin of the Trinity dogma. The authoritative French Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique devotes 16 columns of small type to its arguments against the relationship between Plato's trinity and Christendom's triune God. Yet, this work has to admit that Catholic "Saint" Augustine himself—said to have been "of decisive importance for the Western [Roman] development of the Trinitarian doctrine"—recognized this relationship. Moreover, the Encyclopædia Britannica (1976, Macropædia) states:

    "Such a Hellenization did, to a large extent, take place. The definition of the Christian faith as contained in the creeds of the ecumenical synods of the early church indicate that unbiblical categories of Neoplatonic philosophy were used in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity."

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel,

    "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says:

    "The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

The Church of the First Three Centuries says:

    "The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."

By the end of the third century C.E., "Christianity" and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became "firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians."
The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: "In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship."
In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity:

    "We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists."

'Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.'—The Encyclopedia Americana 

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

Is thehsoly spirit really called _God_ at Acts 5?

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

Is the holy spirit really called God at Acts 5:3, 4? Let us see what it says:

"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto God." ASV

Do you notice that the last part is directed towards Peter when it says, "thou has not lied unto men?" They lied to Peter, who was "filled with holy spirit" Acts 4:8
And when they lied to Peter, they lied to God. Later on, in the same chapter, we have a similar situation in vss 38 and 39 where these words were directed towards Peter and the disciples, "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God." Peter and his men were not God, but representative standing in place of God, and when something is done against them, it is done against God. "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own eye." Zech 2:8 (New Jewish Publication Society/Tanakh). That is why the Scofield Study Bible cross-references Acts 5:4 to Scriptures like Numbers 16:11, 1 Samuel 8:7 and 1 Thess 4:8 which says, "Therefore he that rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you." ASV 

metatron3@gmail.com