JW's, can you explain your understanding of Philippians 2:6?
Philippians 2:6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. NWT
What is meant by, "he was existing in God’s form" if He was no existing in the form of God that is everything that God was He was because He was God?
My son is not existing in my form, while I am in a human form, I am in my own personal form and he is not in that same form.
What is meant by, "that he should be equal to God", if He was equal to God He must be God.
My son is not equal to me I am his father and he is my son, how could a son be equal to God unless he is God?
While you have some strange understandings about Christ you still say He is God's son why would your version of the bible use he, instead of He when referring to Christ.
@Mr.E, I agree the NWT is wrong in many, many places including this translation but they are still stating that Christ when in heaven was equal to God and He became a man.
The problem is that they cannot see this fact because of believing every word from the Governing Body.
Check out the latest from them......After “the Assyrian” attacks........
At that time, the lifesaving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.
@Tim in '66, first you tell me Christ emptied Himself of every part of Himself that was equal to God, and became a man, and then you ask me if I obey my equals or superiors, trying to say Christ could not be God because He now, as a man, obeyed God. They call that circular logic.
(ASV) who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(BBE) To whom, though himself in the form of God, it did not seem that to take for oneself was to be like God;
(Darby) who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God;
(ERV) He was like God in every way, but he did not think that his being equal with God was something to use for his own benefit.
(GNB) He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.
(ISV) In God's own form existed he, and shared with God equality, deemed nothing needed grasping.
(KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(KJV+) Who,G3739 beingG5225 inG1722 the formG3444 of God,G2316 thoughtG2233 it notG3756 robberyG725 to beG1511 equalG2470 with God:G2316
(LITV) who subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
(Webster) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(YLT) who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,
- 7 years agoFavorite Answer
Who, being in the form of
God, thought it not robbery to
be equal with God. PHILIPPIANS 2:6
The NWT has interpreted the verse
- 7 years ago
Not a JW but here's my take.
Sounds pretty straight forward. Jesus, like God, was a spirit both before coming to earth and after ascending back to heaven. In either case, Jesus never sought to be equal to God like Satan tried to do. This follows with ALL the scriptures where Jesus is in subjection to God at all times since he is not equal to God in any way.
Why people attempt to twist this into something it never says is astonishing. Much like the claim the NWT altered verses when I can point out hundreds of verses altered in the KJV and others. I don't expect anyone to do the same critical examination of their Bible since it would prevent the haggardly lame excuses against the JW's.
- Tim in '66Lv 67 years ago
Just because you don't appear to understand a straightforward statement in the English language does not mean that what you are asserting with your question is what the NWT actually says.
Starting from the beginning, if you read that passage of scripture in context, it provides the obvious understanding of what the Apostle Paul was referring to when he said, "although he was existing in God’s form." Philippians 2:6-8 [NWT] reads: "who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. 8 More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake."
So, Paul explains what he meant by "although he was existing in God’s form" when he qualifies that by saying in verse 7, "he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men." What Paul is there showing is that Christ, who was in the same form as his Father, a spirit person, became flesh and blood - a man.
Next point: You say, "they are still stating that Christ when in heaven was equal to God." The scripture does not state that at all. How, in the name of anything even approaching reason have you managed to construe that from these words: "[Christ] gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God"? According to that, the only way Christ could have thought himself equal to God is if he had suffered a seizure that gave him delusions of grandeur; of aspirations above his station. And the remainder of that passage of scripture shows that he never thought of doing so, being "OBEDIENT as far as death."
Ask yourself, do we obey our EQUALS, or our SUPERIORS?
Final point: Insofar as the NWT using the pronoun "he" to refer to Jesus, you will note that where it refers to Jehovah God himself, "He" is used. That aligns with the correct understanding of Philippians 2:6-8, as verse 6 of the NAB version might help you to grasp:
"Have among yourselves THE SAME ATTITUDE that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. (NAB)."
Note, the NAB also refers to Christ as "he."
@ Mr.E: You say, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. PHILIPPIANS 2:6. The NWT has interpreted the verse wrong."
Oh no, they have not. The KJV and any other Bible that translates it as [Christ] "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" are the ones that are interpreting it for no other purpose than to try and justify their trinity teaching. The website
provides a thorough insight into the Koine Greek words employed in this passage of scripture, and, as they have clearly demonstrated [in their own words]:
"A key word in this passage is the Greek word harpagmos which the KJV has translated as "robbery." Such a translation however is ludicrous. First, if this verse was referring to the co-equal second person of the Trinity, as Trinitarians claim, what sense would it make for God the Son to think it might be robbery to be equal with God the Father. Is this a thought that co-equal God the Father might possibly have toward the son too? Secondly, this translation suggests that Jesus consider it well and good to be equal with God when the point of the passage is that Jesus didn't regard such things but humbled himself and served rather than esteeming his status. When it is translated as "robbery" that particular English word over-translates "harpazo" by putting a spin upon it the Greek word does not convey."
So then, it is NOT the NWT that has "interpreted the verse wrong" at all. Your version has done so.
Edit: @ Joe: So true, but, as his inane response to my answer here has shown, I don't think he will consider the validity of yours either, do you?Source(s): Edit: Please show me where I have stated what you have said: "first you tell me Christ emptied Himself of every part of Himself that was equal to God." I haven't said that [or anything remotely like it] at all. Where have I said, or even implied, that Christ was "equal to God"? Indeed, I have gone to pains to show you that Christ himself could not have seen it that way. For you to construe what I have said that way merely affirms what I said at the very outset of my answer. And it matters not a jot how many Bible versions you cite, it neither changes what I have stated concerning Jesus' "form," or that "thought it not robbery" is a complete distortion of the meaning of "harpagmos" in that scripture. Your claim about "circular logic" could only be arrived at because you failed to read all my comments in those 2 paragraphs.
- Anonymous7 years ago
like many other verses proving jesus is god , they change the sentence, either add a word or delete a word to suit their N.W.T. translation, butt hey have missed a few , so i'm sure in the next edition you will see more changes.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- helicoptLv 47 years ago
im existing in my grandpas aunts form...do I have to sing the song on explaining it?