Where does the NWT Bible Falsify?

[YoursTrue]

I disagree, ...
This must be a self Sacrifice, because Jesus incarnated as Human.
John 10
Only God can make this sacrifice.

Jesus sacrificed himself, he went like a lamb to the slaughter. We know that. But he also knew it was the Father's will for him to do so. It was written and he fulfilled the prophecies regarding the Messiah. He was not "God in the flesh," one manifestation equal to one or two other 'manifestations.' Also known by some as persons. But it's for you to realize that while Jesus came from heaven, he did not come as "God" in human form inhabiting a body of flesh he couldn't get out of as "God."

 

[YoursTrue]

That's weird.

Isaac was not the sacrifice Jehovah God wanted for all mankind, since Isaac was not perfect. But Abraham's faith was tested and his obedience pleased Jehovah.
Hebrews 11:17-19 says, "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac on the altar. He who had received the promises was ready to offer his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “Through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and in a sense, he did receive Isaac back from death."

 

[TiggerII]

A criticism I have been confronted with concerns the rendering of Rev. 5:10 in the NWT. Most translations have "reign upon [epi] the earth" or similar renderings.

The NWT has: " ... and they are to rule as kings over [epi] the earth."

The NT Greek word in question ("upon" or "over") is epi (ἐπὶ ).

The scripture is:

(King James Version) Revelation 5:10 “And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on [epi] the earth.” - cf. most translations.

(Darby) Revelation 5:10 and made them to our God kings and priests; and they shall reign over [epi] the earth.

(AT - Smith-Goodspeed) Rev. 5:10 ...and they are to reign over the earth.

(C.B. Williams) ... and they will rule over [epi] the earth.

(W.F. Beck) ... and they will rule as kings over [epi] the earth.

So the question is: what does epi mean?

Well, NT Greek dictionaries give the major meaning as "on" or "upon." However a significant alternate is "over."

For example of the 54 times that epi is rendered as "over" in the NASB, the following have to do with ruling over or having authority over:

Luke 1:33; 9:1; 19:14; 19:27; Acts 7:18; 7:27; Ro. 9:5; Eph. 4:6; Heb. 2:7; 3:6; 10:21; Rev. 2:26; 9:11; 13:7; 17:18.

Sticking with Revelation alone we find:

Revelation 2:26 `He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER [EPI] THE NATIONS; - NASB. Also KJV; NKJV; RSV; TEV; ASV; and many more.

Revelation 9:11 They have as king over [epi] them, the angel of the abyss; - NASB. Also KJV; NKJV; RSV; TEV; ASV; and many more.

Revelation 13:7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over [epi] every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. - NASB. Also KJV; NKJV; RSV; TEV; ASV; and many more.

Revelation 17:18 "The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over [epi] the kings of the earth." - NASB. Also KJV; NKJV; RSV; TEV; ASV; and many more.

Furthermore in all other cases in the KJV where 'reign' and epi are used together it always means 'over':

Luke 1:33; 19:14; 19:27; Romans 5:14; Rev. 17:18.

It is not inappropriate, therefore, to use "over" at Rev. 5:10 also.

In fact, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon notes specifically that epi "A. with the GENITIVE .... I. of Place; and 1. of the place on which; .... d. fig. used of things, affairs, persons, which one is set over, over which he exercises power .... Rev. v. 10;" - p. 231, Baker Book House, 1977.

 

[metis]

Here's why Israel cannot possibly be the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah chapter 53:

1. The servant of Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. Israel is never described as sinless. Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: "Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!" He then goes on in the same chapter to characterize Judah as Sodom, Jerusalem as a harlot, and the people as those whose hands are stained with blood (verses 10, 15, and 21). What a far cry from the innocent and guiltless sufferer of Isaiah 53 who had "done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth!"

2. The prophet said: "It pleased the LORD to bruise him." Has the awful treatment of the Jewish people (so contrary, by the way, to the teaching of Jesus to love everyone) really been God's pleasure, as is said of the suffering of the servant in Isaiah 53:10 ? If, as some rabbis contend, Isaiah 53 refers to the holocaust, can we really say of Israel's suffering during that horrible period, "It pleased the LORD to bruise him?" Yet it makes perfect sense to say that God was pleased to have Messiah suffer and die as our sin offering to provide us forgiveness and atonement.

3. The person mentioned in this passage suffers silently and willingly. Yet all people, even Israelites, complain when they suffer! Brave Jewish men and women fought in resistance movements against Hitler. Remember the Vilna Ghetto Uprising? Remember the Jewish men who fought on the side of the allies? Can we really say Jewish suffering during the holocaust and during the preceding centuries was done silently and willingly?

4. The figure described in Isaiah 53 suffers, dies, and rises again to atone for his people's sins. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 53:10 for "sin-offering" is "asham," which is a technical term meaning "sin-offering." See how it is used in Leviticus chapters 5 and 6. Isaiah 53 describes a sinless and perfect sacrificial lamb who takes upon himself the sins of others so that they might be forgiven. Can anyone really claim that the terrible suffering of the Jewish people, however undeserved and unjust, atones for the sins of the world? Whoever Isaiah 53 speaks of, the figure described suffers and dies in order to provide a legal payment for sin so that others can be forgiven. This cannot be true of the Jewish people as a whole, or of any other mere human.

5. It is the prophet who is speaking in this passage. He says: "who has believed our message." The term "message" usually refers to the prophetic message, as it does in Jeremiah 49:14. Also, when we understand the Hebrew parallelism of verse 1, we see "Who has believed our message" as parallel to "to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed." The "arm of the Lord" refers to God's powerful act of salvation. So the message of the speaker is the message of a prophet declaring what God has done to save his people.

6. The prophet speaking is Isaiah himself, who says the sufferer was punished for "the transgression of my people," according to verse 8. Who are the people of Isaiah? Israel. So the sufferer of Isaiah 53 suffered for Israel. So how could he be Israel? (website no longer exists)

Here is the Jewish interpretation, which to me makes more sense because of the events covered and the names of the towns involved, some of which did not exist or went by different names during Jesus' time. Also, the ending of Deutero-Isaiah mandated the close following of the Law, which are the 613 Commandments as found in Torah, and the Church did not do that since the Law does not apply to Gentiles:
It is argued that the "servant" represents the nation of Israel, which would bear excessive iniquities, pogroms, blood libels, anti-judaism, antisemitism and continue to suffer without cause (Isaiah 52:4) on behalf of others (Isaiah 53:7,11–12). Early on, the servant of the Lord is promised to prosper and "be very high". The following evaluation of the Servant by the "many nations, kings", and "we" Isaiah 52:15 is quite negative, though, and bridges over to their self-accusation and repentance after verse 4 ("our"). Then, the Servant is vindicated by God, "because he bared his soul unto death". On the other hand, it is argued that the "servant" in this song might be an individual.

Some believe the individual to be Hezekiah, who, according to Isaiah 38:5, lived another 15 years (i.e., "prolonging his days") after praying to God while ill (i.e., "acquainted with grief"). His son and successor, Manasseh, was born during this time, thereby allowing Hezekiah to see his "offspring."... Isaiah 53 - Wikipedia

 

[Spartan]

Here is the Jewish interpretation, which to me makes more sense because of the events covered and the names of the towns involved, some of which did not exist or went by different names during Jesus' time. Also, the ending of Deutero-Isaiah mandated the close following of the Law, which are the 613 Commandments as found in Torah, and the Church did not do that since the Law does not apply to Gentiles:
It is argued that the "servant" represents the nation of Israel, which would bear excessive iniquities, pogroms, blood libels, anti-judaism, antisemitism and continue to suffer without cause (Isaiah 52:4) on behalf of others (Isaiah 53:7,11–12). Early on, the servant of the Lord is promised to prosper and "be very high". The following evaluation of the Servant by the "many nations, kings", and "we" Isaiah 52:15 is quite negative, though, and bridges over to their self-accusation and repentance after verse 4 ("our"). Then, the Servant is vindicated by God, "because he bared his soul unto death". On the other hand, it is argued that the "servant" in this song might be an individual.

Some believe the individual to be Hezekiah, who, according to Isaiah 38:5, lived another 15 years (i.e., "prolonging his days") after praying to God while ill (i.e., "acquainted with grief"). His son and successor, Manasseh, was born during this time, thereby allowing Hezekiah to see his "offspring."... Isaiah 53 - Wikipedia

Like my previous post noted, Israel cannot be the suffering servant because, "The servant of Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. Israel is never described as sinless. Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: "Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!" He then goes on in the same chapter to characterize Judah as Sodom, Jerusalem as a harlot, and the people as those whose hands are stained with blood (verses 10, 15, and 21). What a far cry from the innocent and guiltless sufferer of Isaiah 53 who had "done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth!"

Moreover, numerous ancient rabbis confirmed Isaiah 53 was speaking about the Messiah, and Israel the country is no Messiah.

Early Rabbinic Quotes on Isaiah 53 speak of the Messiah

What Rabbis Have Said about Isaiah 53 - Hope In Messiah

Also,

The Rabbis' Dilemma: A Look at Isaiah 53 • Jews for Jesus

 

[metis]

Like my previous post noted, Israel cannot be the suffering servant because, "The servant of Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. Israel is never described as sinless. Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: "Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!" He then goes on in the same chapter to characterize Judah as Sodom, Jerusalem as a harlot, and the people as those whose hands are stained with blood (verses 10, 15, and 21). What a far cry from the innocent and guiltless sufferer of Isaiah 53 who had "done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth!"

Moreover, numerous ancient rabbis confirmed Isaiah 53 was speaking about the Messiah, and Israel the country is no Messiah.

Early Rabbinic Quotes on Isaiah 53 speak of the Messiah

What Rabbis Have Said about Isaiah 53 - Hope In Messiah

Also,

The Rabbis' Dilemma: A Look at Isaiah 53 • Jews for Jesus

From the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, which is not affiliated with any relighion or denomination, here's what is says about the Suffering Servant accounts: The figure in Deutro-Isaiah who bears suffering in hope of redemption, perhaps an individual, but understood as Israel in exile. It was applied to Jesus.

Anyhow, I don't really have to time to continue this, so let me just finish with this, namely that if we summarize the entire Book of Isaiah, it sorta reads like this: Jews did not keep the Law closely enough, they were punished and sent into exile, whereas many years later a remnant returned and was told by God that they must fully observe the Law (all 613 Commandments). Simply put, that cannot be directly applied to Jesus and the Church, as even Jerome's Bible Commentary states.

OTOH, to "prefigure" Jesus, yes.

 

[Muffled]

Oh sure, I believe I did not jot everyhting down that I found as though I were looking to prove something. I suppose then that if the translation is right that you now acknowledge that Jesus is God in the flesh.

 

[Muffled]

I'm not a JW, but have some knowledge about their teachings. It is correct that they believe only 144,000 go to heaven. They are some kind of special chosen ones (I'm sure a JW could explain this better). The remaining righteous people who are saved are resurrected and inhabit the new earth, which is consistent with scripture.

It's taught widely by protestant religions, and in error according to scripture, about the righteous 'going to heaven'. Elaborating on that would be another thread.

I believe that is a far fetched fantasy. The 144,000 are going to the same place we are on earth.

 

[Muffled]

It appears to me as if you have never ever checked out what JW's believe......and comments like the above prove it. Why not find out first before making a judgment?

It's not about whether its "God or Jehovah"....its about whether the very nature of God is something different to that taught by Jesus Christ himself. In John 1:18 just a few verses on from John 1:1 it clearly states that "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him."

If no man has ever seen God, how many thousands saw Jesus Christ? If Jesus is described as an "only begotten god" then, in order to be "begotten" he had to have a 'begetter'. Understanding the Greek word "theos" will help us to see that Jesus and his Father as two separate divine and powerful individuals....but only one is the Almighty.

Revelation 3:14 calls Jesus "the beginning of God's creation". The Father is his 'begetter'. According to one dictionary a "begetter is a..."Type of: parent. a father or mother; one who begets or one who gives birth to or nurtures and raises a child; a relative who plays the role of guardian."

How can Jesus say that 'the Father is Greater than he is' when they are both supposed to be equal in the 'godhead' ?
How could Jesus ask his Father for 'this cup to pass away from him', and then say that 'God's will had to be done and not his own'?

How could Jesus say that the Father knew things that he did not? (Matthew 24: 36)

Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God and neither do Jews....is this a revelation to you? Muslims do not believe that he was the son of God and Jews do not believe that he was the Messiah. Christendom alone believes that Jesus is God. One can only wonder why? It is not a Bible teaching.

Picking John 1:1 to the exclusion of all other scripture just proves the inadequacy of the translators.

There is way more scripture that disproves the trinity than ever supports it. It is a blasphemous teaching to all of the Abrahamic faiths....breaking the first Commandment.

As far as the 144,000 goes.....as has been mentioned by @80s fashion girl, all that means is that God chose a small number of humans to rule with Christ in his Kingdom......like all governments, it is a small minority who rule over the majority. What are kings with no subjects? Why have priests if there are no humans for whom to perform their duties? (Revelation 20:6)

The Revelation speaks of Jesus with his "bride" bringing their rulership to mankind on earth (Revelation 21:2-4).....this is where paradise will be restored...the place where God intended it to be in the beginning. (Isaiah 55:11)

Not going to heaven is no big deal for true Christians because God never meant for any human to go to heaven in the first place. It was always God's intention to have humans living forever on earth....why does everyone think he wants to take us all to heaven? He already has a thousands of angels there.

And as for "works"....it is never stated in scripture that we can attain salvation by works alone. According to James...we need both faith AND works......"Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?. . . . .So, too, faith by itself, without works, is dead.
18 Nevertheless, someone will say: “You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”. . . .You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone. 26. . . . Indeed, just as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:17-26)

You can't have one without the other.

I believe that you are very misinformed.

I believe I have refuted those false idea many times. Have you not seen that before?

 

[Spartan]

From the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, which is not affiliated with any relighion or denomination, here's what is says about the Suffering Servant accounts: The figure in Deutro-Isaiah who bears suffering in hope of redemption, perhaps an individual, but understood as Israel in exile. It was applied to Jesus.

Anyhow, I don't really have to time to continue this, so let me just finish with this, namely that if we summarize the entire Book of Isaiah, it sorta reads like this: Jews did not keep the Law closely enough, they were punished and sent into exile, whereas many years later a remnant returned and was told by God that they must fully observe the Law (all 613 Commandments). Simply put, that cannot be directly applied to Jesus and the Church, as even Jerome's Bible Commentary states.

OTOH, to "prefigure" Jesus, yes.

Jesus said he came for fulfill the Law, not abrogate or abolish it. No one can keep the entire law. Jesus reduced to to two laws, which he said fulfills the entire law. Love God and love your neighbor.

 

[metis]

Jesus reduced to to two laws, which he said fulfills the entire law.

It was this picking & choosing of which Laws to follow that lead to the punishment as found in Isaiah. For example, Peter in his dream covered in Acts concluded that the kosher Laws need not be followed, and yet several of the Laws directly deal with keeping kosher. At the end of Isaiah, the necessity of keeping kosher is repeated.

BTW, I'm sorta just playing devil's advocate here, which might lead to some misunderstanding of where I'm actually coming from, so I think it's best for me just to move on.

 

[Deeje]

I believe I have refuted those false idea many times. Have you not seen that before?

I'm sorry, but no one has refuted that argument. To claim that Jesus is God, is blasphemy. It is a clear breach of the first Commandment.

If you can give me one single statement from either God or his son that they are one and the same God...i.e. separate but equal parts of a "godhead" ( a word that does not appear in any part of scripture) then you might be able to claim refutation. As it stands, all you have is very weak implication.
There is more scripture that disproves the trinity than supports it.

 

[Spartan]

To claim that Jesus is God, is blasphemy.

No, rather to deny he is God is what constitutes blasphemy.

It is a clear breach of the first Commandment.

No again. Jesus is the God who gave the Ten Commandments. He is the Great "I am" of Exodus and John 8:58

 

[Desert Snake]

A criticism I have been confronted with concerns the rendering of Rev. 5:10 in the NWT. Most translations have "reign upon [epi] the earth" or similar renderings.

The NWT has: " ... and they are to rule as kings over [epi] the earth."

The NT Greek word in question ("upon" or "over") is epi (ἐπὶ ).

The scripture is:

(King James Version) Revelation 5:10 “And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on [epi] the earth.” - cf. most translations.

(Darby) Revelation 5:10 and made them to our God kings and priests; and they shall reign over [epi] the earth.

(AT - Smith-Goodspeed) Rev. 5:10 ...and they are to reign over the earth.

(C.B. Williams) ... and they will rule over [epi] the earth.

(W.F. Beck) ... and they will rule as kings over [epi] the earth.

So the question is: what does epi mean?

Well, NT Greek dictionaries give the major meaning as "on" or "upon." However a significant alternate is "over."

For example of the 54 times that epi is rendered as "over" in the NASB, the following have to do with ruling over or having authority over:

Luke 1:33; 9:1; 19:14; 19:27; Acts 7:18; 7:27; Ro. 9:5; Eph. 4:6; Heb. 2:7; 3:6; 10:21; Rev. 2:26; 9:11; 13:7; 17:18.

Sticking with Revelation alone we find:

Revelation 2:26 `He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER [EPI] THE NATIONS; - NASB. Also KJV; NKJV; RSV; TEV; ASV; and many more.

Revelation 9:11 They have as king over [epi] them, the angel of the abyss; - NASB. Also KJV; NKJV; RSV; TEV; ASV; and many more.

Revelation 13:7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over [epi] every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. - NASB. Also KJV; NKJV; RSV; TEV; ASV; and many more.

Revelation 17:18 "The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over [epi] the kings of the earth." - NASB. Also KJV; NKJV; RSV; TEV; ASV; and many more.

Furthermore in all other cases in the KJV where 'reign' and epi are used together it always means 'over':

Luke 1:33; 19:14; 19:27; Romans 5:14; Rev. 17:18.

It is not inappropriate, therefore, to use "over" at Rev. 5:10 also.

In fact, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon notes specifically that epi "A. with the GENITIVE .... I. of Place; and 1. of the place on which; .... d. fig. used of things, affairs, persons, which one is set over, over which he exercises power .... Rev. v. 10;" - p. 231, Baker Book House, 1977.

Ok, so you read your own argument?

I mean, read it again, if you are saying that jesus is the son of g-d.

 

[Deeje]

No, rather to deny he is God is what constitutes blasphemy.

Can you tell me where I might find one single admission from Jesus that he is God or his Father's equal?
Where will I find the name Jehovah as identifying Jesus Christ? Where will I find Jehovah calling his son "the only true God" as Jesus did of his Father? (John 17:3)

Why would the apostles identify only the Father as their God and not Jesus? (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) The trinity has no support in the Bible except in vague verses where they see it implied. Without a direct statement...the trinity is a blasphemous addition that officially, and after much controversy, entered "Christianity" over 300 years after Jesus died.

No again. Jesus is the God who gave the Ten Commandments. He is the Great "I am" of Exodus and John 8:58

Jesus is not Almighty God although he has divine origins.

Here is how Exodus 3:13-15 reads in the Tanach...
"And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"
And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God [יְהֹוָ֞ה] of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation."

You will see there that Jehovah's name never meant "I AM". His name is a statement of his intentions to "BE" whatever he needs to be in order to accomplish his will. He did not need to tell his own people that he existed, because they had already witnessed his powerful works in rescuing them from Egyptian slavery...the 10 plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea, the pillar of smoke and the pillar of fire to guide them day and night. They had no reason to doubt his existence.

In John 8:58, Jesus is answering a question about his age. He was saying that he existed before Abraham. There is no relationship between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 except in the minds of trinitarians. Do you know how many times Jesus said "I am"? (I am the way the truth and the life"....."I am the bread from heaven") Was he claiming to be God in those verses?

There is way more scripture that disproves the trinity than ever supports it. If you understood the mechanics of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, you would see why it is impossible for God to incarnate and then die.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm sorry, but no one has refuted that argument. To claim that Jesus is God, is blasphemy. It is a clear breach of the first Commandment.

If you can give me one single statement from either God or his son that they are one and the same God...i.e. separate but equal parts of a "godhead" ( a word that does not appear in any part of scripture) then you might be able to claim refutation. As it stands, all you have is very weak implication.
There is more scripture that disproves the trinity than supports it.

What? You also said that anyone can be called 'g-d', without specification, yet you say Jesus can't be g-d.

Your argument makes no sense.

 

[Desert Snake]

Anyways Im outta this debate, it's complete nonsense.

 

[Desert Snake]

Satan is g- d, moses is a g-d, Beezlebub is g-d, in fact anyone or anything can be g-d, therefore Jesus can't be g-d!

Great argument!

 

[Deeje]

Satan is g- d, moses is a g-d, Beezlebub is g-d, in fact anyone or anything can be g-d, therefore Jesus can't be g-d!

Great argument!

You just don't get it do you? I am thinking that perhaps 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 applies here.

You just refuted your own argument....there are many "gods" in Greek mythology who are deemed to be "divine mighty ones" because that description fits the Greek word "theos". The Greeks had gods and demi-gods all of whom had a name.
Jesus had a name too, but not once is he called Yahweh. He has many names, titles and roles in God's arrangement, but he is not, and never has been, the Almighty. He was "sent" by his God to accomplish a difficult mission on earth, which he completed perfectly.....and then returned to heaven where he continued to call his Father "my God". (Revelation 3:12) Does one part of God worship an equal part of himself? I think you need to examine the validity of your own argument.

When Jehovah said that he would make Moses "god" to Pharaoh, he was doing so from Pharaoh's point of view, not bestowing deity on Moses. When the Bible calls satan "theos" its not saying that he is the Almighty. Jesus is also a "god" (theos) in the Greek definition of the word......but he is not "ho theos".

There is one Almighty God who is identified in Psalm 83:18 as YHWH ...יְהֹוָ֞ה

 

[Desert Snake]

You just don't get it do you? I am thinking that perhaps 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 applies here.

You just refuted your own argument....there are many "gods" in Greek mythology who are deemed to be "divine mighty ones" because that description fits the Greek word "theos". The Greeks had gods and demi-gods all of whom had a name.
Jesus had a name too, but not once is he called Yahweh. He has many names, titles and roles in God's arrangement, but he is not, and never has been, the Almighty. He was "sent" by his God to accomplish a difficult mission on earth, which he completed perfectly.....and then returned to heaven where he continued to call his Father "my God". (Revelation 3:12) Does one part of God worship an equal part of himself? I think you need to examine the validity of your own argument.

When Jehovah said that he would make Moses "god" to Pharaoh, he was doing so from Pharaoh's point of view, not bestowing deity on Moses. When the Bible calls satan "theos" its not saying that he is the Almighty. Jesus is also a "god" (theos) in the Greek definition of the word......but he is not "ho theos".

There is one Almighty God who is identified in Psalm 83:18 as YHWH ...יְהֹוָ֞ה

We don't have the same God belief, this argument is just semantics, at this point.

Exodus 3:4-14

John 5:37

You can try to explain those verses in Exodus as an angel saing 'I', so forth, even though the text directly says 'God'.