Thayer’s defines ginosko as:

 

1.      to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of, perceive, feel

 a.      to become known

2.      to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of

 a.      to understand

 b.      to know

3.      Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman

4.      to become acquainted with, to know [4]

 

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words also states, “In the NT ginosko frequently indicates a relationship between the person ‘knowing’ and the object known; in this respect, what is ‘known’ is of value or importance to the one who knows, and hence the establishment of the relationship…” [5]

 

Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology states, “The New Testament emphasizes that knowing God is not simply on intellectual apprehension, but a response of faith and an acceptance of Christ.” [6]

 

Albert Barnes says of John 17:3, “The word ‘know’ here, as in other places, expresses more than a mere speculative acquaintance with the character and perfections of God. ‘It includes all the impressions on the mind and life which a just view of God and of the Saviour is fitted to produce.’ It includes, of course, love, reverence, obedience, honor, gratitude, supreme affection. ‘To know God as he is’ is to know and regard him as a lawgiver, a sovereign, a parent, a friend. It is to yield the whole soul to him, and strive to obey his law.” [7]

 

The footnote for John 17:3 in the NET Bible states:

 

…(abundant) eternal life is defined as knowing (being in relationship with) the Father and the Son…For John this knowledge is not intellectual, but relational. It involves being in relationship. [8] (emphasis mine)

 

Does “taking in knowledge” encompass the shades of meaning present in ginosko?

 

No.

 

Turning to Thayer’s, we find an entry for a word that is translated “take knowledge of,” as proposed by the NWT’s translation of ginosko in John 17:3. That word is epiginosko and is defined in Thayer’s as:

 

1.      to become thoroughly acquainted with, to know thoroughly

a.      to know accurately, know well

2.      to know

a.      to recognise

1.      by sight, hearing, of certain signs, to perceive who a person is

b.      to know i.e. to perceive

c.       to know i.e. to find out, ascertain

d.      to know i.e. to understand [9]

 

None of these definitions for epiginsoko (“take knowledge of”) implies a personal relationship and needless to say, epiginosko is not used in John 17:3. Ginosko is.

 

Ginosko is much more than epiginosko as “take knowledge of” (or “taking in knowledge” as translated by the NWT). Ginosko means knowing absolutely, perceiving, understanding and forming a relationship. The NWT’s translation of ginosko in John 17:3, “taking in knowledge,” does not reflect building a relationship with Yahweh and Jesus Christ. The emphasis of the NWT translation of ginosko is scholarly learning, for where in “taking in knowledge” is a relationship implied? Memorizing details about a celebrity’s life and preferences doesn’t mean that I know that celebrity, though it could certainly be said that I would be “taking in knowledge” of that celebrity. Similarly, memorizing Bible facts does not equate to knowing (forming a relationship with) Yahweh and Jesus Christ. For this reason, I object – strenuously and fervently – to the NWT’s translation of ginosko as “taking in knowledge.”

 

In this regard, John 5:39, 40 is particularly apropos:

 

[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. [40] And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. (KJV)

 

[39] "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; [40] and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. (NASB)

 

[39] You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, [40] yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (NIV)

 

[39] “YOU are searching the Scriptures, because YOU think that by means of them YOU will have everlasting life; and these are the very ones that bear witness about me. [40] And yet YOU do not want to come to me that YOU may have life. (NWT)

 

To be fair, paragraph 18 in this same chapter of KNOWLEDGE that Leads to Everlasting Life states, “The knowledge of God can also do much for you right now. Life’s deepest and most disturbing questions are answered in the Bible. Accepting its guidance will help you to develop a friendship with God…” [10] (emphasis mine).

 

I do not contend that JW doctrine asserts that Bible knowledge alone leads to salvation. The above clearly states that accepting the Bible and what it says about Yahweh and Jesus will help us form a relationship (“friendship”) with God and various quotes from JW literature indicates this as well. My argument, in this instance, is not with JW doctrine (though JW salvation doctrine will be addressed later on this site). My objection lies with the translation offered for ginosko in that “taking in knowledge” is insufficient because a personal relationship with God is not involved or implied. JWs teach may teach that forming a relationship with God leads to salvation, but this translation of John 17:3 certainly gives us no indication of that.

 

***

Paragraph 8 states:

 

What the Bible says about the future of the earth and mankind might be summed up in one word – Paradise! Jesus Christ spoke of it when he told a dying man: “You will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43) The mention of Paradise no doubt brought to that man’s mind the happy state of our first parents, Adam and Eve…[11]

 

What is Paradise? The word translated as Paradise in these verses is paradeisos in the original Greek. Strong’s entry for paradeisos reads as follows:

 

G3857

παράδεισος

paradeisos

par-ad'-i-sos

Of Oriental origin (compare [H6508]); a park, that is, (specifically) an Eden (place of future happiness, “paradise”): - paradise [12].

 

And Thayer’s:

 

G3857

παράδεισος

paradeisos

1) among the Persians a grand enclosure or preserve, hunting ground, park, shady and well watered, in which wild animals, were kept for the hunt; it was enclosed by walls and furnished with towers for the hunters

2) a garden, pleasure ground

      2a) grove, park

3) the part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of pious until the resurrection: but some understand this to be a heavenly paradise

4) the upper regions of the heavens. According to the early church Fathers, the paradise in which our first parents dwelt before the fall still exists, neither on the earth or in the heavens, but above and beyond the world

5) heaven [13]

 

The American Tract Society Bible Dictionary states, “In the New Testament, ‘paradise’ is put, in allusion to the paradise of Eden, for the place where the souls of the blessed enjoy happiness. Thus our Savior tells the penitent thief on the cross, ‘Today shalt thou be with me in paradise;’ that is, in the state of the blessed.” [14] Easton’s Bible Dictionary says paradise, “…came in course of time to be used as a name for the world of happiness and rest hereafter,” [15] and according to Smith’s Theological Dictionary, “It is applied figuratively to the celestial dwelling of the righteous, in allusion to the garden of Eden.” [16]

 

Paradeisos is only used three times in the New Testament. Here, in Luke 23:43 and in the following verses:

 

2 Corinthians 12:2, 4

 

Reading in context with paradeisos highlighted in red:

 

[2] I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. [4] How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (KJV)

 

[2] I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven.  [4] was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. (NASB)

 

[2] I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know - God knows.  [4] was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. (NIV)

 

[2] I know a man in union with Christ who, fourteen years ago – whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know; God knows – was caught away as such to the third heaven. [4] that he was caught away into paradise and heard unutterable words which it is not lawful for a man to speak. (NWT)

 

Please note that the “third heaven” spoken of in 2 Corinthians 12:2 is called “paradise” in 2 Corinthians 12:4.

 

What, then, is the third heaven?

 

According to Barnes’ Notes on the Bible:

 

“…the Bible speaks of but three heavens; and among the Jews in the apostolic ages, also, the heavens were divided into three:

(1.) The aerial, including the clouds and the atmosphere, the heavens above us, until we come to the stars.

(2.) The starry heavens--the heavens in which the sun, moon, and stars appear to be situated.

(3.) The heavens beyond the stars. That heaven was supposed to be the residence of God, of angels, and of holy spirits. It was this upper heaven, the dwelling-place of God, to which Paul was taken, and whose wonders he was permitted to behold--this region where God dwelt, where Christ was seated at the right hand of the Father, and where the spirits of the just were assembled.” [17]

 

Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible agrees:

 

“…he was caught up into the third heaven, the heaven of the blessed, above the aërial heaven, in which the fowls fly, above the starry heaven, which is adorned with those glorious orbs: it was into the third heaven, where God most eminently manifests his glory…This third heaven is called paradise (2 Corinthians 12:4), in allusion to the earthly paradise out of which Adam was driven for his transgression; it is called the paradise of God (Revelation 2:7), signifying to us that by Christ we are restored to all the joys and honours we lost by sin, yea, to much better.” [18]

 

David Guzik further states:

“...Paul is using terminology common in that day, which referred to the "blue sky" as the first heaven, the "starry sky" as the second heaven, and the third heaven as the place where God lived and reigned.” [19]

The JW I study with indicated that the third heaven Paul spoke of in 2 Corinthians 12:2 is the future paradise earth, that Paul was transported forward in time or was allowed to see a vision of the future. The JW also stated that the phrase “caught up into the third heaven” should be taken metaphorically, that the phrase was used only to emphasize the intense spiritual connection Paul had experienced.

 

Is either of these alternatives possible?

 

Needless to say, nothing is impossible for God so could God have transported Paul in time or revealed a future earthly paradise to him in a vision? Yes. Paul himself indicated that he did not know whether he was in his corporeal, physical body or out of his body during this revelation. A vision or visit to a future paradise earth is certainly within the realm of possibility of the powers of our Almighty God.

 

As far as “caught up into the third heaven” as a metaphor is concerned, The Adam Clarke Commentary states:

“In the sacred writings three heavens only are mentioned. The first is the atmosphere, what appears to be intended by rekia, the firmament or expansion, Genesis 1:6. The second, the starry heaven; where are the sun, moon, planets, and stars; but these two are often expressed under the one term shamayim, the two heavens, or expansions, and in Genesis 1:17, they appear to be both expressed by rekia hashshamayim, the firmament of heaven. And, thirdly, the place of the blessed, or the throne of the Divine glory, probably expressed by the words shemei hashshamayim, the heavens of heavens. But on these subjects the Scripture affords us but little light; and on this distinction the reader is not desired to rely.

Much more may be seen in Schoettgen, who has exhausted the subject; and who has shown that ascending to heaven, or being caught up to heaven, is a form of speech among the Jewish writers to express the highest degrees of inspiration. They often say of Moses that he ascended on high, ascended on the firmament, ascended to heaven; where it is evident they mean only by it that he was favoured with the nearest intimacy with God, and the highest revelations relative to his will…” [20]

 

 

Could Paul be using a figure of speech to indicate the intensity of his experience only? E.W. Bullinger’s Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Explained and Illustrated [21] does not list or even mention “caught up into the third heaven” or anything similar as a figure of speech as described above, but Clarke certainly indicates this is might be so.

 

Alfred Edersheim, in the preface of his classic book, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, however, recommends caution:

 

“…Those who have consulted the works of Lightfoot, Schöttgen, Meuschen, Wetstein and Wünsche, or even the extracts from them presented in Commentaries, know that the help derived from their Jewish references is very great. And yet, despite the immense learning and industry of these writers, there are serious drawbacks to their use. Sometimes the references are critically not quite accurate; sometimes they are derived from works that should not have been adduced in evidence; occasionally, either the rendering, or the application of what is separated from its context, is not reliable. A still more serious objection is, that these quotations are not unfrequently one sided; but chiefly this - perhaps, as the necessary consequence of being merely illustrative notes to certain verses in the Gospels - that they do not present a full and connected picture. And yet it is this which so often gives the most varied and welcome illustration of the Gospel narratives...” [22]

 

Given the conflict in commentary on the subject, the issue of whether or not Paul experienced a literal or metaphoric “third heaven” should not be absolutely determined inside the context of 2 Corinthians 12:2,4 alone. The other Biblical texts in which paradise occurs must be consulted.

 

Please note, as well, that in both 2 Corinthians 12:2 and in 2 Corinthians 12:4, Paul uses the words “caught up” in regards to both the third heaven and Paradise in the KJV, NASB and NIV while the NWT uses “caught away as such” to the third heaven and “caught away” to Paradise. I cannot hazard to guess as to the reason for this variation in wording since the same word, harpazo in Greek, is used in both 2 Corinthians 12:2 and 2 Corinthians 12:4, but the differentiation isn’t standard among other translations. Of the 72 examined [23], only 5 and the NWT [24] use different words to translate this same word, harpazo, differentiating its use in 2 Corinthians 12:2 from that of 2 Corinthians 12:4. Some of the 5 that differ are contemporary language translations given to paraphrase more so than the more literal, word-for-word translations, but the WTBTS does not contend that the NWT is a contemporary language translation. As such, the addition of “as such” to 2 Corinthians 12:2 in the NWT is completely unnecessary and unwarranted.

 

 

Revelation 2:7

(paradeisos highlighted in red)

 

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. (KJV)

 

`He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.’ (NASB)

 

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. (NIV)

 

Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations: To him that conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. (NWT)

 

 

The relevant phrase in this verse is, “which is in the Paradise of God” (emphasis mine).  Please note the tense of the verb used in this phrase: is. The word in Greek is esti, which both Strong’s [25] and Thayer’s [26] indicates is the third person singular present indicative. This message was directed to the church of Ephesus, in John’s day. The present tense of the verb “is” indicates that Paradise existed, currently existed, even then. This present tense rules out a future-only Paradise, be it on earth or otherwise. Paradise existed because Jesus promised it to overcomers in Ephesus, told the Ephesian church that the promised Paradise “is.”

 

As for its location, earth certainly wasn’t a paradise at the time of John and the Ephesian church. So the paradise spoken of must be located somewhere else. Where else? In the third heaven, as Paul indicated in 2 Corinthians 12:2,4. Not a metaphoric third heaven. A literal place.

 

 

 

Comma placement, Luke 23:43

  

Luke 23:43

 

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (KJV)

 

And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (NASB)

 

Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." (NIV)

 

And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” (NWT)

 

As noted above, the NWT places the comma after “today” in Luke 23:43 while KJV, NASB and NIV place the comma before “today.” In fact, all 72 translations [27] I consulted placed the comma/break before “today” -- except the NWT, the Peshita-Lamsa Translation and The J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible [28]. Why is the placement of a comma important? The question lies in what phrase “today” modifies. Is Jesus telling the thief today? Or will the thief be in Paradise that day? The comma tells the tale. If “today” indicates when Jesus is speaking, it doesn’t change Christian doctrine in the slightest. If, however, “today” indicates when the thief will be in Paradise, the effects on JW doctrine are disastrous.

 

The original Greek did not have punctuation marks so it is left to translators to decide how punctuation is to be used in the text. To determine where the comma should be placed in Luke 23:43, we should look to how similar phrases and grammatical constructions are punctuated.

 

Jesus frequently used the phrase, “verily I say unto you” (KJV), “Truly, I say to you” (NASB), “I tell you the truth” (NIV), or “Truly, I tell you” (NWT). All of these translations correspond to the same phrase in transliterated Greek, amhn legw soi/umin. Variations are made in this basic construct based on whether or not who or whom Jesus was speaking to was one specific person (soi) [29] or a group of people (umin) [30]. Some amhn legw soi/umin sayings include conjunctions such as “for” (gar) [31], but the amhn legw soi/umin form remains basically the same in its essence.

 

Jesus alone uses the amhn legw soi/umin phrase. He used it 74 times in the New Testament [32] (click on the link at the bottom of this page to review each of these amhn legw soi/umin statements) and in each instance, the amhn legw soi/umin saying is used as an introductory phrase independent of what follows it. These breaks from the subsequent text are initiated immediately after the amhn legw soi/umin phrases and are indicated by a comma or by following the phrase with the word “that” in all 74 amhn legw soi/umin statements in the NWT with only one exception – Luke 23:43.

 

Amnh legw soi Vs. Amhn soi legw

 

JW apologists protest that Luke 23:43 is not grammatically identical to the other 73 amhn legw soi/umin statements and this precludes Luke 23:43 from the amhn legw soi/umin subset. In a sense, they are correct. Luke 23:43 does differ from the other amhn legw soi/umin statements in that the Luke 23:43 construct is amhn soi legw while the others are amhn legw soi. The pronoun (soi or umin) precedes the verb in Luke 23:43 whereas in the other amhn legw soi/umin statements, the pronoun follows the verb.

 

I do not pretend to be a Greek scholar, but even I know, from my personal studies in Biblical languages, that words are frequently moved forward in a sentence to emphasize that particular word in Koine (Biblical) Greek. There were two thieves crucified with Jesus. One remained unrepentant while the other asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into his Kingdom. Jesus could have emphasized soi in this instance to single out the thief who had faith from the thief who remained unrepentant. Or maybe Jesus emphasized soi to indicate even somebody like the thief could and would be in Paradise. Whatever the case may be, the fact that soi comes before the verb in Luke 23:43 effects emphasis only. It doesn’t change what the phrase means and therefore, does not preclude Luke 23:43 from the other 73 amhn legw soi/umin statements. [33]

 

Emphasizing amhn legw soi/umin

 

One argument for the comma being placed after rather than before “today” in Luke 23:43 is that Jesus was emphasizing the very day of his statement (as opposed to emphasizing the thief above) because it was that very day that the thief exhibited great faith:

 

…It was a day when Jesus had been rejected and condemned by the highest-ranking religious leaders of his own people and was thereafter sentenced to die by Roman authority. He had become an object of scorn and ridicule. So the wrongdoer alongside him had shown a notable quality and commendable heart attitude in not going along with the crowd but, rather, speaking out in Jesus’ behalf and expressing belief in his coming Kingship.[34]

 

How did Jesus place emphasis on the other amhn legw soi/umin statements in the Gospels?

 

In the Gospel of John, Jesus places emphasis on amhn legw soi/umin statements 22 times by repeating amhn [35]. (Click on the link at the bottom of this page to review these emphasized amhn amhn legw soi/umin statements.) In these instances, instead of reading amhn legw soi/umin (“verily I say unto you” in the KJV), you would read amhn amhn legw soi/umin (“verily, verily, I say unto you” in the KJV). Emphasis is used by repeating amhn, not by using a time modifier such as “today.”

 

Jesus’ other legw soi/umin statements [36]

 

As previously stated, there are 74 amhn legw soi/umin statements in the New Testament. Jesus spoke an additional 63 legw soi/umin (“I say unto you” in the KJV) statements [37] as well. If we remove Luke 23:43 from the list of verses in this pool, we are left with a grand total of 136 legw soi/umin statements. None of these statements are modified by time. None. The burden of contextual proof rest with the JWs to support their contention that Jesus broke the pattern he set in these 136 statements to use time to modify one particular amhn legw soi/umin saying in Luke 23:43.

 

JW apologists assert that “today” modifies amhn legw soi/umin in Luke 23:43 in the same way that “today” modifies and emphasizes speech verb phrases in the Old Testament, such as:

 

Deuteronomy 4:40

 

Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever. (KJV)

 

"So you shall keep His statutes and His commandments which I am giving you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may live long on the land which the LORD your God is giving you for all time." (NASB)

 

Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the LORD your God gives you for all time. (NIV)

 

And you must keep his regulations and his commandments that I am commanding you today, that it may go well with you and your sons after you, and in order that you may lengthen your days on the soil that Jehovah your God is giving you, always.” (NWT)

 

However, an examination of these Old Testament statements reveals a pattern quite different from the pattern in Luke 23:43. None of these Old Testament statements include either amhn or legw in the Greek translations from the original Hebrew. Not even one.

 

Both amhn and legw are specific to Jesus’ statements, distinctive. They operate as a signature, separating the amhn legw soi/umin sayings from others in the New Testament. We cannot consider the amhn legw soi/umin statements without amhn and certainly not without legw. Yet, JWs insist that an Old Testament idiomatic use of “today” in statements that do not include Jesus’ key words -- the very words that define this unique subset – supersedes the pattern Jesus established in 73 statements that do include the words that define the subset. In effect, they demand that we ignore the very words we seek to study. Instead of studying the legw Jesus used in this unique subset, we must resort to studying generic speech verbs. From the Old Testament (whose canon was closed some 400 years before Jesus was born), no less.

 

JWs claim that using “today” as a modifier of speech verbs to place emphasis, per these Old Testament statements, was common in Jesus’ day. JWs frequently point to Acts 20:26 (also written by Luke):

 

Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. (KJV)

 

"Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. (NASB)

 

Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. (NIV)

 

Hence I call YOU to witness this very day that I am clean from the blood of all men, (NWT)

 

In Acts 20:26, “today” is said to modify and emphasize “testify” (NASB). But if the idiom was common, we would expect to find other examples in the Scriptures. We do not. I didn’t, at any rate. Claiming the idiom as common, when there is only one example of it in the New Testament, far overstates the Scriptural evidence. Perhaps idiomatic usage of “today” was common in New Testament times. I do not know. But it’s certainly not common in the New Testament writings, which is what we are concerned with here. Forcing an idiomatic usage of “today” on Luke 23:43 on the basis of one New Testament example in Acts 20:26 and generalizing the distinctive legw Jesus used in order to make the Old Testament pattern fit violates the very amhn legw soi/umin pattern we seek to study.

 

We must also consider the significance of amhn. What function does amhn perform? It emphasizes the legw soi/umin saying. As noted before, amhn is repeated to lend special emphasis to legw soi/umin sayings. Emphasis has already been stressed by using amhn. Another modifier would be superfluous and break the pattern of how Jesus emphasized these sayings in every other instance.

 

 

Why JWs insist on the NWT’s comma placement

 

As previously stated, if “today” modifies Jesus’ amhn legw soi/umin statement in Luke 23:43, the effects on traditional Christian doctrine are negligible, but if “today” identifies when the thief will be in Paradise, the results on JW doctrine are disastrous. How so?

 

JWs teach that there is no immortal soul. When you die, you die. That’s it. End of story. You don’t go to Heaven or Hell. You cease to exist. Finit. Therefore, according to JW doctrine, Jesus couldn’t have told the thief that he would be in Paradise with Jesus that very day. The thief died so JWs believe the thief ceased to exist that very day, just as JWs believe we all cease to exist the moment we die. If Jesus told the thief he would be with him in Paradise that very day, it proves an immortal soul that lives on after death and nullifies this JW doctrine. So JWs tend to be very dogmatic about the NWT’s comma placement. The reader should be completely familiar with both the arguments for and against the NWT’s comma placement before pursuing this debate with any JW.

 

Also, to be completely fair, I must admit that this argument with Chapter 1 of the KNOWLEDGE [38] book is a sidebar issue of that chapter. Paragraph 8 completely omits the amhn legw soi/umin saying that precedes Jesus’ statement in Luke 23:43, as well as “today” (which JWs contend modifies the omitted amhn legw soi/umin saying) so the issue with comma placement isn’t outright and immediately noticeable to the casual reader.