JOHN 17:3: "taking in knowledge"-NWT
The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures reads here:
"This means[ESTIN a form of EIMI] everlasting life, their taking in knowledge[Gk: hINA GINWSKWSI, Present Subjunctive of GINOSKO with hINA]of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."
The criticism's often leveled here against the New World Translation concerns its rendering of GINWSKWSI as "taking in knowledge" and ESTIN a form of EIMI as "means" rather than by "is." Many translations have "is" for ESTIN and "to know" or similiar for GINWSKWSI.
Firstly, we have came upon criticism of the NWT here in a book(published in the UK),written by an ex-Jehovah's Witness(which must now be some 30yrs old or more since publication. And as he is an ex-Jehovah's Witness we have decided not to grace this page with his books title)who claimed that the NWT had wrongly 'altered' the Bible here and it should only be translated as "to know you"(as found in all the major Bible translations before and since. See also The NWT Reference Bible(1984)footnote). The writer attempted to make his point from citing the N.T. translation of R.F.Weymouth, The New Testament in Modern Speech, which reads:
"And in this consists the Life of the ages - in Knowing Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent"
But how he had failed to notice Weymouth's footnote to this scripture alludes us! We say this for Weymouth had written at the bottom of the page to this verse:
"knowing]Or, as the tense implies, 'an ever-enlarging knowledge of.'"(emphasis mine)
So, Weymouth would not have been critical of the stance taken here by the NWT Translation Committee! Do you, reader, think this critic proved his contention? But since then others have called the NWT's translation here as a "mistranslation."-Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses, 1993, p.44, Ron Rhodes
Interestingly, in the March 1st, 1992 issue of The Watchtower a one page article appeared 'Taking in Knowledge of God and Jesus'. It asked the question:
"Why...does the New World Translation render this verse "taking in knowledge of...God" instead of "know...God," as most other translations of the Bible express it?" The article goes on to say, "..the rendering in the New World Translation is designed to bring out as fully as possible the meaning of that word[ginosko]. The basic meaning..is to "know," but the Greek word has various shades of meaning."
Notice that the Greek word has
"various shades of meaning." This indicates
that the Greek word, and the NWTTC recognized this, can be
translated several different ways depending on grammar
and the context in which it was being used in. At no
time did the NWTTC state that every time GINWSKO appears
and in the present tense it means a 'progressive knowing
or knowledge'. And nor have those scholars we will cite below
So, merely listing(as some critics of the NWT apparently have done)of other places where the same Greek word appears and in the present tense does not preclude it having this meaning, a continuous or progressive meaning, here at John 17:3. The following will show why it can, even does.
For example some might cite Matthew 9:30 where GINWSKW is present imperative, "to know." But here, as the context shows, it would be an absolute knowledge of. That is, they, the general population, would either know, or not know, about Jesus' act of curing the blind men. This is gotten from the context. This is quite different from what John meant with his use of the word at John 17:3 for how could any have an absolute knowledge of God the Father(compare Romans 11:33-35)!
John 14:7, another one cited where GINWSKW is present tense like it is at John 17:3. But here it denotes the fact of knowing, not a progressive act of knowing. Again, it is primarily the context that shows this. But neither of these two are where we have GINWSKW present subjunctive with hINA. But even when we do have a present subjunctive with hINA this does not demand a progressive or continuous sense but would allow for this sense if the context shows it can/does. For example, we have at John 17:23 GINWSKW again and in the present subjunctive with hINA.(See the Kingdom Interlinear Translation produced by the NWTTC) How does the NWT translate? Not as a progressive 'knowing.' Jesus' words here does not mean that the "world" would progressively or continually have the "knowledge" that the Father sent the Son but that the world "may have the knowledge" that this was so. This shows that the NWTTC did not simply consider that the grammar itself demands this sense but only allows for it. One must look, in this case and John 17:3 as well, what John reports all of what Jesus was saying as an indicative factor.
At John 17:3 the NWT has taken it as a result clause, that is, it is by "their taking in knowledge" or "their knowing" the only true God and Jesus Christ that will result in "their," Jesus disciples, the "whole number" whom the Father had given to him, obtaining "everlasting life." not might in any sense they might or might not but it will for them on the condition that they learn about/know God and His Son. Does it mean simply that while they continually "know" God or have "knowledge" of God they will obtain "everlasting life" or did Jesus mean that they would obtain "everlasting life" if they continued to learn, increasingly come to know God and Jesus Christ? The NWT shows they consider the latter the better option in this case here. Wallace in his grammar on the present tense "Introduction: The Basic Meaning: Aspect" states "The present tense's portrayal of an event "focuses on its development or progress and sees the occurence in regard to its internal make up, without beginning or end in view."(1)It is sometimes called progressive: It "basically represents an activity as in process(or in progress)." (1.quoting Fanning, Verbal Aspect in the New Testament Greek, 103 and 2. Mckay "Time and Aspect," 225. italics theirs). Wallace on p.519 cites instances of this "Progressive Present" such as Acts 2:8 PWS HUEIS AKOUOMEN EKASTOS TH IDIA DIALEKTW HUIWN "How is it that we are hearing, each in our own dialect?" If then one translates GINWSKW as "knowledge," as one certainly can at John 17:3( see Barrett below, also the others we will cite) then one most certainly can portray this progressive knowledge in the way the NWT has with its "taking in knowledge."
C.K.Barrett in his commentary on John's Gospel (SPCK, London, 1962) has a good discussion at John 17:3, of the "knowledge of God" in Hebrew and Hellenistic thought and he shows that such "knowledge" is both "objective and at the same time a personal relation." On page 68 he links "belief"(PISTENEIN, see our quote of Bernard below) with "knowledge" saying "the verb PISTENEIN is used synonomously with GINWSKEIN(e.g. 6:69; and cf. 17:3 with 3:15 and many other passages) and knowledge itself implies relationship in addition to cognition." Hence when Jesus used the word GINWSKW it is not that he was limiting this 'knowing' to only of a personal 'knowing' but to one that also included a knowledge of the person in how he has revealed himself in historical events and so to quote Barrett here in his comments of this knowledge Jesus was referring to:
"(a)Knowledge of God and Christ gives life; but the same result follows from believing(20:31). Knowing and believing are not set over against one another but correlated. This suggests that John's conception of knowledge is close to that of the Old Testament. (b) Knowledge has also an objective, factual side. Men must know the only true God(cf. 8:32....) This objectivity is partly Greek but owes something to the native Jewish conception that God reveals himself, and is known, in concrete historical events.....Saving knowledge is rooted in knowledge of a historical person: it is therefore objective and at the same time a personal relation."
The following scholarly quotations we supply then will show the NWTTC was and still is not alone in this sense of a growing and progressive knowledge here at John 17:3. It should be acknowledged of course there will always be differing opinions when a present tense verb is progressive or continuous and in what sense it is. Wallace, for instance, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics on page 520 discusses his "customary(habitual or general) present" and gives "clear examples." As an example of an "ongoing state" he then translates the Greek of John 14:17: "he continually remains with you and he shall be in you." (bold his.)Yet what modern English translation translates the Greek like this? This just shows that often times translators see something they think can be brought out in a fuller or expanded English translation. This is what the NWTTC was and is trying to do at John 17:3. While some might disagree with that choice here this does not mean the NWT has mistranslated the Greek any more than Wallace does with his translation of the Greek of John 14:17 when neither the NIV, the NASB, the NAB, the NRSV does likewise.
In agreement with the aforementioned article in the March 1st, 1992 issue of The Watchtower is what J.B.Rotherham stated in his appendix to his translation, The Emphasised New Testament, under 'Know', page 270:
"Important shades of meaning are; "get to know(Jn. xvii.3,7,8,25), "understand"(1Jn.ii.3, 13; iv 16; v.20)and "approve," "acknowledge,"(Ps.i.6; Mt.vii.23; Ro.vii.29; 2 Tim.ii.19)
The Watchtower article then quotes from no less than 6 Greek-English lexicons/commentaries. We will quote as the article does re the comments of Marvin R. Vincent on John 17:3:
"This is striking that eternal life consists in knowledge, or rather the pursuit of knowledge, since the present tense marks a continuance, a progressive perception of God in Christ. That they may learn to know." Word Studies in the New Testament, 2 Vol. set by McDonald Publishing Company, Mc Lean, Virginia, page 495.-italics ours
Vine's Expository Dictionary says, under 'know':
"GINOSKO...signifies to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely..."
The Companion Bible says in it's Appendix 132:
"ginosko=to know(by experence, or effort); to acquire knowledge, become acquainted with; hence to come or get to know, learn, percieve..."
The Interpreters Bible says on this very verse:
"Eternal life(vs.3), the summum bonum in this Gospel, as the kingdom of God is in the Synoptics, consists in the Knowledge of God-yet not the static knowledge of the Gnostics, but a progressive knowledge, "learning to know thee"(note the force of the present tense, [in-order-that you-may-be-knowing you]."
The International Critical Commentary, St John, vol II, J. H. Bernard, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1928, p.561:
"...the present tense (GINWSKWSIN) marking that continual growth in the knowledge of God which is characteristic of spiritual life, as physical growth is a characteristic of bodily life."- italics ours.
Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament states:
"Should know (ginwskwsin). Present active subjunctive with ina (subject clause), "should keep on knowing." -italics ours.
But we can find more:
Raymond Brown writes:
"[John 17]3...they know you. Although some witnesses have a future indicative, the best witnesses have a present subjunctive; this implies that the knowledge is a continuing action."-The Gospel According to John, The Anchor Bible, Vol.29A.-italics, bold ours.
And Professor Tasker in The Gospel of John, An Introduction and Commentary, Tydale NT Commentaries, p.191 in "Additional Notes" remarks:
"[John 17:]3. That they might know. In Greek the verb is in the present subjunctive indicating that the 'knowledge' is a growing experience."
Hence, The Complete Bible in Modern English(1922) by Ferrar Fenton reads;
"And the eternal life is this: to obtain a knowledge of You the only true God, and the Messiah Whom You have sent."
And The Gospels: An Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest(our edition being that of Pickering & Inglis, London, 1956) translates:
"And this is the eternal life, namely, that they might be having an experiential knowledge of you..."("experiential" means 'of or based upon experience'.)
So if anyone comes across any criticism of the New World Translation at John 17:3 with how it has rendered GINWSKW here, they should be able to see that certain critics have either not done their 'homework' or else, even worse, does not want to inform those interested of the full facts with either the Greek or those who we have quoted that support such a rendering. However if anyone has the NWT Reference Edition of 1984 and wish or prefer the alternative rendering of "their knowing you", then the footnote gives the reader that choice. It should be noted that the 1st edition of the New World Translation of 1950 also says in a footnote, "Or, "their knowing you." We wonder then why the above 'critic' we alluded to/mentioned did not notice or know that too, or, even worse, if they did know, why they did not inform their readers of that fact. A case of informing or mis-informing. We'll let you decide.
To read some more on this see Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, An Answer to Scholars and Critics(1st or 2nd editions)by Greg Stafford.
We would add that while the above shows the grounds for accepting the New World Translations' rendering of the Greek GINWSKW here at John 17:3 as "taking in knowledge" some 'critics' will accuse the translators of choosing such a rendering so that the Jehovah's Witness faith can use John 17:3 to show that one must 'study the literature and only the literature of the WTB&TS so as to gain "everlasting life".' That is, questioning the motives behind their translation. And also that the New World Translation's rendering obscures the need for a personal relationship with both the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. This is a lie aswell as contradicting and maligning all those we have quoted above and that which we will quote below!
One poster on a JW discussion board alleged, wrongly, that, to quote him verbatim:
This is glaringly untrue and for
two reasons.(A 'strawman' argument!)The poster here shows a total
ignorance in how the Jehovah's Witnesses publications have
exegeted the words of Jesus Christ here at John 17:3, as
well as misunderstanding the very words Jesus used in
his prayer on behalf of his faithful followers! It also disgrees
with all the commentators we have quoted such as Marvin Vincent,
J.H.Bernard and Raymond Brown aswell as the comments found in The
And, of course, the Witnesses have never believed that Jesus meant by "taking in knowledge," with the subjects being God and his Son Jesus Christ, as being "a matter of academic learning"! Where has he got this from we might ask?
Rather than taking this prejudiced poster's word for it we can see that through-out the years the literature of the WTB&TS has explained John 17:3 this way and the following are two examples:
"We acquire this knowledge by diligently studying Gods Word and by obediently conforming our lives to its standards. (Compare Hosea 4:1, 2; 8:2; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.) What fine reward awaits those who acquaint themselves with Gods personality and with that of his Son and then strive to imitate them? Everlasting life!"-The Watchtower, March 1st, 1992, page 23. Italics ours.
Did you notice "God's personality...and that of his Son" is the "knowledge" Jesus means? So, this puts the lie to the above and also to the very same accusation made by Robert M. Bowman in one of his books on Jehovah's Witnesses.
Another example of how the literature of the Witnesses exegete this "knowledge" of John 17:3 and we can quote is:
"Getting to know God, then, involves knowing both him and his Son. Jesus Christ pointed this out when saying in prayer to his Father: This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of [or, knowing, An American Translation] you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. (John 17:3) Such knowing of God and his Son is not just head knowledge, acquired information. It actually means to recognize the authority of God and his Son and to submit to it.- The Watchtower, 1975, p.117.( italics ours.)
This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.JOHN 17:3.
TO KNOW someone as a mere acquaintance or to have knowledge of something in a superficial way falls short of the meaning of the words know and knowledge as used in the Scriptures. In the Bible this involves the act of knowing through experience, a knowledge that expresses a relationship of trust between persons. That includes knowing Jehovah through taking account of specific acts of his, such as those many cases in the book of Ezekiel where God executed judgments against wrongdoers, proclaiming: And you will have to know that I am Jehovah.Ezekiel 38:23.
The variety of ways in which know and knowledge may be used can be clarified with a few examples. To many claiming to have acted in his name, Jesus said, I never knew you; he meant he had never had anything to do with them. (Matthew 7:23) Second Corinthians 5:21 says that Christ did not know sin. That does not mean that he had no awareness of sin but, rather, that he had no personal involvement with it. Similarly, when Jesus said: This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ, more was involved than merely knowing something about God and Christ.Compare Matthew 7:21.(italics ours.)- WT93 6/15 pp. 13-14
These(and others we could quote)shows that is is not just the acquiring of knowledge about God the Father, Jehovah and His Son but the application of it in ones life course and thus gaining a personal relationship with the Heavenly Father and His Son that will lead one to gain "everlasting life".
Another article in the Watchtower of 1988, June 1st, page 15 states:
"ACCURATE knowledge of God and his Son, Jesus Christ, is vital for those who want everlasting life. [Gods] will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. (1 Timothy 2:4) Such knowledge from Gods inspired Word, the Bible, will equip us to know who God is and what our obligations are toward him. (2 Timothy 3:16,17; 1 John 2:17) It will also enable us properly to identify Jesus Christ and our relationship to him.Psalm 2:12; Philippians 2:5-11.
Without accurate knowledge, we may become ensnared by false teachings promoted by Gods opposer, Satan the Devil, who is a liar and the father of the lie. (John 8:44) Therefore, if a doctrine contradicts Gods Word, if it is a lie, then believing it and teaching it discredits Jehovah and brings us into opposition to him. So we need to examine the Scriptures carefully to distinguish truth from falsehood. (Acts 17:11) We do not want to be like those who are always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.2 Timothy 3:1, 7."
The above quotations from the Watchtower magazine, as with all those non WTB&TS sources we also have quoted, puts the lie to the above posters' false and wholly unwarranted allegations and agrees with what we can read in Vol.36 of the World Biblical Commentary series, John 2nd edition by George R. Beasley-Murray whom writes on v.3 of John 17:
"[John 17:3]As a definition of eternal life it reads remarkably like a confession of faith: the eternal life, of which the gospel speaks, consists in the knowledge of God and of Jesus the Son, the Christ he has sent......the utterance reflects more closely the gospel tradition of Jesus' teaching, above all expressed in Matt 11:27....Such knowledge advances beyond the intellect to include relationship and communion..." p.297.
Exactly! And with that the Jehovah's Witneses agree! The New World Translation's "taking in knowledge" at John 17:3 does not obviate these comments.
GINWSKWSI- Present Subjunctive: How to translate into English here.
But what of the mood of the Greek verb GINWSKWSI? Here it is Present Subjunctive. Should the New World Translation have used the word "might" or "may" here? The Kingdom Interlinear Translation does in fact show that the basic meaning of GINWSKWSI here is "they may be knowing." English words such as "might," "may" and "would" are words that show the verb's mood is subjunctive. The verb in this mood states a condition, a purpose, a wish or a doubt. It is used to express a possiblity, an uncertainty or an indefinite statement, However, the subjunctive in English is very often indistinguishable from the indicative. In Greek though the Subjunctive can be used as or instead of a infinitive usually in English by the use of the word "to."(For instance "to know.")However, there are different forms of the Greek subjunctive one being the Present Subjunctive . This occurs elsewhere in John's writings. What should be looked at is the clause hINA + Present Subjuntive. One such place is at John 6.29. The New American Standard Version here reads: "...that[hINA] you believe[Present subjunctive] in Him whom He has sent." The word rendered "believe" is in the Greek Present Subjunctive and no word such as "should" or "may" has been used as the meaning is captured without it. However, what the Present Subjunctive refers to here is a continous action, a continuous believing. This has not been captured by this Bible version and it is this that the Present Subjunctive is used to express. Hence, the New World Translation has greater accurracy and brings this out with its "...that you exercise faith in him whom that One sent." Yes, it is a continuous "believing" or of "exercising faith." J.H.Bernard in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of John states about the clause hINA with a present subjunctive, in this case PISTEUHTE:
"hINA PISTEUHTE points to a definite act of faith at a particular moment...; but this does not suffice. TO ERGON TOU THEOU is hINA PISTEUHTE, "that you may have faith continually."(italics ours).
This brings as back to GINWSKWSI, present subjunctive of GINWSKW of John 17.3. It is preceded by hINA. This clause here then rather than meaning "their knowledge of"(or "...know God")can be translated as "their taking in knowledge of" (or "their knowing God")so that the whole sentence reads: "This means(or "is") everlasting life, their taking in knowledge..."(or: "their knowing God.."-NWT footnote). As stated earlier C.K.Barrett in his commentary on John's Gospel (SPCK, London, 1962) has a good discussion at John 17:3, of the "knowledge of God" in Hebrew and Hellenistic thought and he shows that such "knowledge" is both "objective and at the same time a personal relation." On page 68 he links "belief"(PISTENEIN, see our quote of Bernard above) with "knowledge" saying "the verb PISTENEIN is used synonomously with GINWSKEIN(e.g. 6:69; and cf. 17:3 with 3:15 and many other passages) and knowledge itself implies relationship in addition to cognition." The New World Translation then does justice both to the tense and the mood of the verb GINWSKWSI as well as the background of GINWSKIEN in the gospels.
The New World Translation rendering ESTIN(literally "is") as "means" at John 17:3:
The NWT Translation Committee have not indicated why ESTIN(a form of EIMI) is rendered as "means" rather than "is" here. However, our 'take' on this is that this, i.e. "means" is an acceptable rendering in view of the fact that the NWT rendered GINWSKWSI as "taking in knowledge" and so ESTIN would have an explicative, explanatory meaning rather than one of literal 'identity'("is," "are" or "am.") and hence better rendered "means" _in the NWT_. Interestingly A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature remarks under EIMI:
" 3. explanatory: is a representation of, is the equivalent of. EIMI here, too, serves as a copula; we usually translate mean, so in the formula TOUT ESTIN this or means, that is to say...After verbs of asking, recognizing, knowing and not knowing...MAQETE TI ESTIN learn what (this) means Mat 9:13. EI EGNWKEITE TI ESTIN 12:7: cf Mk.1:27.....J 16..17f...."-page 222.
True, this Lexicon does not cite
John 17.3 as an example of this meaning but this would not rule
out this meaning here. So it is translated in the New World
Translation and others(such as Barclay's New Testament
Translation) as "means"(HN, imperfect EIMI) at 1 Cor.10:4;
11:25. The "cup" could not possibly literally be
the "new covenant." See also Matthew 26:26 and
the footnote in the NWT 1984 Ref.Edition. Nor is "taking
in knowledge" of God literally "everlasting
life". This "taking in knowledge" is a progressive
thing that will lead to "everlasting life". So,
the NWT editors have rightly understood this meaning from the
text. It is the translator's perogative to translate how they/he
feels what rendering best communicates what the speaker or author
meant(even in a predominantly literal version).
However, this is not all we can say on this. The Greek John used in the beginning of his sentence here in John 17.3 is: "AUTH DE ESTIN." John used this construct elsewhere and in fact was the only Bible writer to do so. Take for instance 2 John 1.6 where we find: "KAI AUTH ESTIN." How have some translated rendered ESTIN here? As "means." For example:
Revised English Bible: "What love means is...",
The Translator's New Testament: "Love means that..."
The Bible, An American Translation: "Love means this..."
The New Testament: A New Translation by William Barclay: "To love means to..."
The New Testament in the Language of the People by C.B.Williams: "Now love means this...".
The question is then:: Why then cannot John 17.3's AUTH DE ESTIN be translated as "This means.." as the NWT does? It can! Certainly, they are not the only ones to do so. .Two translators who has also rendered ESTIN at John 17:3 as "means" rather than "is" is Charles B. Williams The New Testament in the Language of the People and Goodspeed in The Bible: An American Translation. Both render as "means".("Now eternal life means.." and "And eternal life means.." respectively) The New World Translation also translates ESTIN as "means" at 1 John 5:3 where John writes AUTH ESTIN again. And once again other translations do likewise here by translating ESTIN as "means." . The Holy Bible: An American Translation reads "Loving God means we do what he orders." See also C.B.Williams and Goodspeed again at this place. The Modern Language Bible, The New Berkeley Version renders ESTIN as "is" at John 17:3 but as "means" at 1 John 5:3. At John 17.3 the New World translation keeps to the Greek word order in the first clause, AUTH DE ESTIN, "this but means"(it is not necessary to translate the particle DE "but"). So, there is nothing wrong with rendering ESTIN at John 17:3 as "means." Nor as "is" if that is what one would prefer at this place.
Addendum : John 17.3 tells
us that the "only true God" is the Father and the
Father only, and is distinct and seperate from "Jesus Christ."
The Father is the "only" true God. This excludes any
other person being this "true God." The Son then is not
"the only true God." Yet what of Jude 4 where we are
told that for Jude's readers Jesus Christ is their "_only_[Greek
MONOS]master and _Lord_"? Does this mean that the _Father_
is not the "Lord" of Christians? This is what some
trinitarians have asked in their attempt to obviate what is
clearly stated about the Father being the "only" true
God at John 17:3. We would answer: Its not only the word MONOS
that is decisive in an exegesis of John 17:3 but the immediate
context in which it is used. In John 17.3 the MONOS as "the
_only_ true God" is distinct from Jesus Christ. In Jude 4
the MONOS is used with the word "Lord" and is the Lord
Jesus Christ and here is used to make a distinction and contrast
from the ones that Jude therein mentions, the "men" who
are "ungodly men" who Jude condemns yet are in the
Christian congregation, which congregation, has only one Lord
that has been given them. This scripture then cannot be used to
show that the Christ is the Christians "only...Lord" to
the exclusion of the Father. So, can any trinitarian however show
us a scripture place where Jesus Christ is said to be MONOS
KURIOS, the "only Lord," as seperate and
distinct from the Father? No, there is no such place. This is
because both the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ, can be called
"Lord" yet not the same "Lord" or them being
equal as to their respective 'lordships'. To return to the letter
of Jude however we have MONOS, "only," not only in
verse 4 but also verse 25. This time we see what we see in John
17.3...that this MONW THEW[how the Greek reads],"the only
God," is seperate and distinct from the "_Lord_ Jesus
Christ." For Jude this "Lord" is _not_ "the
only God our Savior." There is only One God and this being
is not tri-personal and does not include Jesus Christ, the Son,
but the Father only.-1 Cor.8.6.
INDEX OF PAGES