The Bible clearly teaches that something can be unique and distinct and yet be one, (1 Cor. 12:12, Gen. 1:24.)

Jesus and the Father are one [thing], (John 10:30.) (Note that the original Greek Grammar uses the neutral form of “one” indicating that the two distinct things are one but each separately unique. But just because Jesus is of the Godhead does that mean that He is equal to God?

Three names share equal billing in Matt. 28:19, 2 Pet. 1:2, 2 Cor. 13:14.

Col. 2:9 reads, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”, NRSV. The King James, “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

These seem very self explanatory, but the NWT renders, “because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.”

Two of these renderings are very similar but the NWT stands out as very different. The NWT differs in the rendering of the word ‘theotetos.’ Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon discusses this word in context with Col. 2:9 extensively. He declares that ‘theotetos’ “is a form of theos.” ‘Theos’, of course, means “deity.”

Thayer defines deity as “the state of being God, Godhead.”

The World book Encyclopaedia defines deity as “the essence of God.”

The Emphatic Diaglott, a Watchtower publication, renders it as “Deity.” The KIT, a Watchtower publication, and the NWT both render it as “divinity”, which is a quality of God not actually being God. So which Watchtower publication is correct?

Obviously the lie that the Watchtower is telling here is revealed by their own publications. That the “state of being God” differs with the “quality of God” cannot be understated.

Thayer's Lexicon, which is referred to by the Watchtower as being “comprehensive”, states that ‘theot’ (deity) differs from ‘theiot’ (divinity) as essence differs from quality.” So according to Thayer, a man quoted very often by Jehovah's Witnesses in their Theological arguments, this use of ‘theotetos’ means that Jesus is the same essence as deity which greatly differs from just possessing the quality of God.

He is the Godhead ‘theotetos’ in the flesh ‘somatikos’, and God was well pleased ‘eudokeo’ for all that fullness to dwell in him, Col. 1:19.

The Bible is very clear here on the difference for we read that true believers can share in the nature of divinity ‘theios’ (root of ‘theiot’, divinity), 2 Pet. 1:4, and Jesus is the ‘theotetos’ (deity) we share in. How can these words be both be rendered as “divinity” by the Editors of the NWT. That these words are synonyms but definitely not the same is obvious.

In fact, almost any Lexicon can validate this. More proof can be found in the KIT, “For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the World's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his Eternal Power and Godship so that they are inexcusable:” That Eternal Power and Godship are qualities is readily secured by the bracketed word defining it as such and the footnote at the bottom of the page where it reads, “Godship (theiotes, related to theos’, God); Divinitas, Vg. The Latin word here ‘divinitas’ literally means “divinity” a quality.

That Jesus is of the same substance of God can be found in Heb. 1:3. Here it reads, “He is the reflection of [his] glory, and the exact representation of his very being.” “Reflection comes from ‘apaugasma’, “exact representation” from ‘charakter’, and “very being” from ‘hypotasis’.

The Trinity Exposed Web-page, a Watchtower Webpage, gives one definition of ‘apaugasma’ as “radiance”, “precise reproduction in every respect” for ‘charakter’ and “essence” for ‘hypotasis.’ So it can easily be seen that this verse means, he is the radiance of his glory, and a precise reproduction in every respect of his very essence. What more do we need?

Jehovah created the Sabbath. Jesus “loosed” the Sabbath and claimed to be equal with God by saying that as the Father is working He is working, (John 5:17-18.) These verses are used by Jehovah's Witnesses to disprove the Deity of Jesus. They contend that the unbelieving Jews said he was breaking the Sabbath and claiming to be equal to God. They further contend that John was writing of what the Jews imagined. They claim Jesus came to fulfilled the law not to brake it. Moreover, they aver that the Jews were wrong about what Jesus meant when he called God his Father. And as if that isn’t enough the editors of the NWT render verse 17, “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” Is this correct? Is it scriptural? Is it grammatically correct or justified to render verse 17 as such? Let’s read scripture in context and explore the meanings of a few words to find out.

To being with, Jesus could not and did not sin.

The difficulty here lies in the Greek word rendered ‘breaking’, ‘elue.’ It can rightfully be rendered loose, untie, release, set free, break, set aside, destroy pull down, break up, allow.

The sense of this passage here is that Jesus who was Lord of all, including the Sabbath, wanted an opportunity to help a crippled man and make a point to the unbelieving Jews. The fact that Jesus told him to pick up his cot and go home on the Sabbath was not a sin, and is plainly shown in verse 14 where Jesus admonishes this man not to sin.

The second fact is that ‘elue’ is probably better understood as “breaking”, in the sense of loosing or setting aside this self-imposed, human-made restriction on the Sabbath.

This fact can be supported by the “KINGDOM INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK SCRIPTURES” on the interlinear side in which ‘eleu’ is transliterated “was loosing.”

So the Watchtower themselves understands the context of this word (that it cannot mean breaking as in sinning) and still they present this word argumentatively in the wrong context to avoid the plain meaning this verse so as to forward their Theological translation and belief system.

Further examination of verse 17 in this publication (the KIT) of theirs indicates on the interlinear side that, literally ,“the father of me until right now is working, and I am working, both present tense.”

This contradicts the NWT side and reduces the impact of this statement that Jesus and the Father are one [thing] (cf. Jn. 10:30, KIT) and that they act as one.

Indeed, the editors of the NWT may have lessen the impact of this verse but the unbelieving Jews there with Jesus got the full impact and fully understood Jesus’ claim of absolute equality with the Father. This type of editing is very instructive of how the NWT was derived and this author has found that the Kingdom Interlinear publication is most useful in exposing this type of Theological translating.

Jesus didn’t feel that equality with God was something He needed to take (for He always had equality with God), (Phil. 2:6.)

The verse reads “who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,” NAS.

The NWT renders “who, although he was existing in the God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.”

The “INTERLINEAR NRSV-NIV” reads “who in [the] form of god subsisting deemed [it] not robbery the to be equal things with God,” in the interlinear section. The KIT renders “who in the form of God existing he considered not snatching the to be equal (things) to God.” (Some of the word order here was changed to the order to allow English readers to be able to make a sensible comparison.

The first thing that pops out to any reader here should be the tenses of the NWT's text compared to the original Greek. For example “was existing” is derived from the Greek word ‘huparchon’ which is usually rendered in the form of a ‘being’ verb. But the Greek sense of this word goes much deeper than this, it literally means “never ceasing to be” in God’s form here.

The insertion of ‘was’ here obscures the clear and powerful meaning that Jesus always was in the form of God. The next curious thing about this rendering is, where did the “translators” find any Greek words for “namely, that He should” in this verse? From direct comparison to the KIT side it can be seen that these operative words change the clear meaning diminished on the NWT side.

This verse only means that Jesus, who always existed in God’s form did not consider it robbery to take that which was already His, total “equality in quality as in quantify the nature, rank, and authority belonging to God.”

This last quoted portion comes from a man very often referred to as a Biblical Greek authority by the Watchtower (Dr. Thayer a Unitarian who also didn’t believe in the Tri unity of God but truthfully rendered Greek words even when they didn’t fit into his Theology) in his rendering of the word ‘ison’ found in this verse. But is all this supported by any other scripture or is it just twisting as some may say?

Yes, it does! Jesus existed previously as the eternal “Word of God” (Jn.1:1), and shared all the prerogatives and attributes of God (Col. 2:9), and had no desire to strive for what was His by His very nature and inheritance (Phil. 2:6.)