Jehovah's Witnesses,
As a part of your theology, you insist that Christ is in no way or fashion (including prayer) is to be worshiped. With all theological biases aside, should με ("Me") be included in John 14.14, or should it be omitted? If you wish to send an answer through e-mail instead of disclosing your identity, please do.
In your response, please consider the following:
1.) Manuscript support in favor of its inclusion: P66 P75 א B W Δ Θ 060 f13 28 33 579 700 892 1006 1342 Byz(pt) [E H] l184(1/2) l514 l547 l672 l673(1/2) l813 l890(1/2) it(c, f) vg syr(p, h)
2.) The inclusion has the strongest transmission throughout time and throughout various geographical locales, rather than its omission, which is predominantly much later than most witnesses, and least wide spread throughout geographical locales.
3.) The inclusion best explains the origin of both variant types, that is, the omission of με ("Me"), and its substitution ("the Father").
4.) Author's symmetrical style (v.14, "If you ask Me..." vs. v.15, "If you love Me...").
5.) The correlation with ἐγώ (“I”) later in the verse.
6.) 1 Chron. 16:8, "call on Him in His name"; Ps. 54:1, "save me in Your name."
7.) Prayer is addressed to Christ elsewhere throughout the NT: Acts 1.20-25, 7.59-60, 9.12-14; 1 Cor. 16.22, 2 Cor. 12.8-9; 1 John 5.13-15; Rev. 22.20
Update:New Kid,
You said that Trinitarianism is God dishonoring -- what a lowly view of Christ you have. The extremely high Christology that I have is anything but God dishonoring, but one that pleases the Father, and seats Christ where He rightly belongs.
Update 3:Now that would certainly be a subject of much debate, the equality between the Persons of the Trinity (or as the Athanasian Creed puts it, “Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead”), that is. And one that would center around a rendition of a text which you already to deny, a text which ascribes equality between God the Father, and the pre-existent Christ with regards to their nature -- John 1:1.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
The answer by New Kid (a JW) demonstrates the tragedy of trying to get JWs to look at the Bible. They refuse to even consider that Jesus could have given Christians permission to pray to him, becuase they know that prayer is a form of worship and their foundational doctrine is that Jesus must not be worshipped - even as 'a god'.
However, the Greek text that the JWs used for their own New World Translation, clearly shows Jesus saying "If you ask ME anything in my name, I will do it." It's in their own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures!
Well, if they refuse to check on the Greek, they might check other scriptures about praying to Jesus. For example, Stephen prayed to Jesus just before he was stoned to death. He committed his spirit to Jesus, not Jehovah, even though he'd just had a vision of Jesus and Jehovah, together! Acts 7:54-60.
Then there's 1 Corinthians 1:2 where Christians are identified as those who call upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ. "Calling upon the name of" speaks of prayer, just as "calling upon the name of Jehovah" speaks of prayer to Jehovah. Christians call upon the name of Jesus in prayer. That's what identifies them. JWs refuse to do that. And, unsurprisingly, they do not take the name of Jesus as their name. This proves their theological bias.
EDIT - So that nobody is labouring under a misunderstanding: Westcott & Hort did NOT put this 'me' in square brackets! Just check the KIT and see that there are no square brackets anywhere.
There is no "fashioned textual content of the Bible". Each faith beginning with the Roman Catholics started to take distinct codices of the phrase and people priests Canonized them as being the true word from God. How can that be when MAN did the making a choice on and deciding upon of that have been the respectable "phrase of God" and the rest was once rubbish. MAN can not make that choice and i don't care what style of "funny hat" he wears. My philosophy is Kindness
Greetings,
I don’t have time right now to specifically address all your points as I’d like, so I’m just giving a quick response until tomorrow or the next day.
Westcott and Hort include “me” (ME) in their Greek text but place it in brackets showing that it was in doubt. Of the other Greek texts, Griesbach, Tregelles, Alford and Wordsworth leave it out, Lachmann considered it doubtful and only Tishendorf did not doubt its veracity.
Some critics have used this scripture to accuse the NWT of bias in translation. Their claim is that Witnesses left out the “me” based solely on their personal theology since Witnesses do not believe that prayers should be addressed to Jesus. These critics attempt to support this accusation with the fact that Westcott-Hort includes the word “me” the NW translation ignores it. Yet, as usual such critics hide the fact that “me” was not considered to be the original text by W/H.
Also, if it is really a bias by Witnesses, then why do other translations by Trinitarians which are also based on the Westcott/Hort text translate it exactly as the NWT? For example, the NEB, The Twentieth Century NT and The NT by C. B. Williams. Since even these Trinitarian translators leave out the “me,” the charge of bias proves to be unfounded.
Rather than any bias, the real reason is because these translators are actually following the *primary* reading of the Westcott/Hort text.
Although the Witnesses reproduce the Westcott and Hort Greek text in their interlinear (KIT), they do not copy the critical apparatus of Westcott and Hort. Yet, while other translations do not inform their readers that they are following a secondary reading when they include the word “me,” the Witnesses have included a footnote in the 1984 reference edition listing exactly which ancient Greek manuscripts omit or include the word.
So, instead of a bias in the translation of the NWT, what we really have here is a bias on the part of these critics which leads them to falsely prejudice others against Witnesses and the NWT! The do this by withholding the above facts and thus demand an ignorance on the part of their readers. Therefore, the facts reveal that these deceptive critics are either dishonest or have not done the proper research in their criticism of the NWT.
In addition to the textual reasons for omitting the word “me” in John 14:14, the translators of the NWT give us a Scriptural reason from the context for their decision to follow the primary reading. In their footnote they point out that their rendition is in agreement with John 15:16 and 16:23. The rendering “Ask *me* anything” would cause Jesus to contradict himself since in 15:16 and 16:23 he stated: "...in order that no matter what you ask *the Father* in my name he might give it to you" and "And in that day you will ask me *no question at all*. Most truly I say to you, If you ask *the Father* for anything he will give it to you in my name."
Yours,
BAR-ANERGES
There really is no point in wasting time giving a comprehensive answer to that question, when you clearly are a staunch Trinitarian, not open to any reason whatsoever.
Nowhere in the Bible does it state or even suggest that Almighty God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are coequal.
The Trinity doctrine is a God dishonouring, unbiblical and unchristian belief that has it's roots in pagan mythology.
You don't see how Jesus telling his disciples to ask him (Jesus) for something in his (Jesus') name is nonsensical?
Here are a few hints to jolt your reasoning:
Can you imagine someone applying for a job and listing the same person he is applying to as the sole character reference on his application?
Do you know what a mediator is? Can a mediator mediate a matter involving himself and another person? Isn't a mediator supposed to be a THIRD party? (1Timothy 2:5)
So how could Jesus be asking his followers to petition him in his own name? If his followers are addressing him directly in prayer then that obviously negates the need to evoke his mediatorial role, i.e. asking in his name, for the mediator and the one being petitioned will then be one and the same. (Compare Galatians 3:20)
So don't you see how nonsensical it is to suggest that Jesus was telling his followers to ask him in his own name?
The use of 'I' later in the verse does not mean it belongs at the beginning. It only verifies the point that Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and that he carries out his Father's will -- when we pray to God, God answers our prayers through Jesus -- i.e. Jesus executes the fulfillment of the requests granted by the Father.
The main point of Jesus' statement at John 14:14 is not WHO is being asked but the novelty of asking in Jesus' name. You must remember that Jesus' first century followers were Jews who were, for all their lives, praying to the Father. If Jesus was telling them to address prayers directly to him, then this new development which was a deviation from what they knew as the norm would have meant that he would tell them this explicitly on multiple occassions. But we don't see this. Instead we see him saying on multiple occassions to "ask IN my name", showing that his followers would be directing their prayers not TO him but THROUGH him. This is what Jesus' first century disciples understood and did. Read Acts 4:24,29,30 and notice that the apostles addressed their prayer to God in Jesus' name -- not to Jesus in Jesus' name.
But if you love the traditions and doctrines of men more than scripture, then just continue using faulty reasoning and ignoring explicit scriptures that disprove the Trinity.
i am a Church of Christ member i think he means that we as Christians will do greater works because we have the world to spread the Gospel Mark 16;16 Jesus was sent to only the lost sheep of Israel the apostles would go to all the world and they did when we ask in faith for things that are according to his will he hears us if we ask amiss he dose not James 1;6 James 4;1-6 the J.W. are anti christ as i think you know they don't believe Jesus was the Son of God but a god
Jaydubs, like any other Abrahamic religionistas, have the right to rewrite the Bible any way they so choose. Muhammad did it. Joseph Smith did it. Why not?