Decepto-Meter

Satanic quote: Unitarian

Barclay himself says about the Watchtower quote of him, "The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say." William Barclay.

Watchtower
Magazine

William Barclay is quoted in Watchtower magazine, May 15, 1977.

This is a satanic, deliberate misrepresentation of what William Barclay actually said. In this case Barclay actually wrote a letter after the Watchtower abused his materials. This is certain proof that the Watchtower is a deceiver when it quotes from sources! Usually the Watchtower misquotes those who have died and are not able to write such letters of protest.

How the Watchtower quoted the source

"the noted Bible translator William Barclay writes" 'Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them ... When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description rather than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say: 'James is man,' then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos (the Word) with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, 'The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being as God ... John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God'." (Watchtower, May 15, 1977, page 320, quoting from Barclay's book, Many Witnesses, One Lord, 1963, pp. 23, 24).

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

"In a matter like this, we cannot do other than to go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Theos is the Greek word for God, en for was, ho for the, logos for word. Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say, "James is the man," then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but if I say: "James is man", then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would have definitely identified the Logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, "The Word was in the same class as God, belonging to the same order of being as God." The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who has: "The Word was as to his essence essential deity." But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely accurate rendering: "What God was the Word was." John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God'" (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, p23-24)

"God himself took this human flesh upon him." (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, p27)

Deception Exposed:

Dear Professor Donald Shoemaker,

Thank you for your letter of August 11th. The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves.

If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N.E.B., they missed the whole point.

It was good of you to write and I don't think I need say anything more to make my position clear.

With every good wish.

Yours Sincerely

William Barclay.

(Letter written by William Barclay to Donald Shoemaker of Biola College after Shoemaker informed Barclay how the Watchtower had misquoted him, 26 August, 1977)

Our comments

1. When Barclay says in his book, Many Witnesses, One Lord: "John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God", Barclay is refuting Modalism. Modalism states that the Father and the Son are the same person. Barclay is saying, with our brackets added for emphasis, "John is not here identifying the Word with God [the person of the Father]. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God [the person of the Father]". Jehovah's Witnesses deliberately confuse their readers by misinterpreting anti-Modalist comments. Such is the "deception of wickedness".
2. When Barclay says in his book, Many Witnesses, One Lord: "The Word was in the same class as God, belonging to the same order of being as God." It is obvious that Barclay is viewing that Jesus is just as much VERY God as the Father.
3. In Barclay's letter to Shoemaker, he says, "that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God" which is echoing the Athanasian creed.