IN THE BEGINNING


What do we know about our creator? We are told at 1 Corinth. 14:33 "For God is [a God], not of disorder, but of peace." (NWT) An other Bible renders this verse as "God is not one who likes things to be disorderly and upset. He likes harmony, …" (Living Bible).  To start to see how true those words are, all we need to do is look at creation to see how orderly that is. Especially if we raise our eyes to the heavens and realise as the Psalmist did Psalm 8:3-4 - "When I see your heavens, the works of your fingers, The moon and the stars that you have prepared," as well as Psalm 19:1  - "The heavens are declaring the glory of God; And of the work of his hands the expanse is telling" and Psalm 75:1 - "Men have to declare your wondrous works" (NWT). The heavens are so precise and organised that we humans set our clocks by their movements. Does that not tell us that he likes order?


We are also given a very brief look into the heavens, and in these windows of the realm of God we see that things are organised. Take for example Psalms 103:20, 21 “20 Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word. 21 Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure.”


Of interest is the English word “hosts”. The Hebrew word here means - “a mass of persons (or figuratively, things), especially reg. organized for war (an army); by implication, a campaign, literally or figuratively (specifically, hardship, worship): —  appointed time, (+) army, (+) battle, company, host, service, soldiers, waiting upon, war(-fare).” Strongs Hebrew Lexicon word number 6635 – (underline mine) An army is a very structured and organised assembly of “people”


The NWT renders Verse 21 as “Bless Jehovah, all YOU armies of his, You ministers of his, doing his will” 




The Prophet Daniel gives us another look into the heavens. In this vision Daniel sees a royal court in session. The very idea of  loyal individuals gathered in a royal court suggests organisation.  - “I kept on beholding until there were thrones placed and the Ancient of Days sat down. His clothing was white just like snow, and the hair of his head was like clean wool. His throne was flames of fire; its wheels were a burning fire. 10 There was a stream of fire flowing and going out from before him. There were a thousand thousands that kept ministering to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand that kept standing right before him. The Court took its seat, and there were books that were opened.” Dan. 7:9,10 (NWT)


From those two texts we see in the heavens God has an organised royal court with an army of angels attending. Does that not suggest "orgaisation:?


What about with us? The Bible makes this comment at 1 Corinthians 14:40 "Let all things be done decently and in order." (JKV). Again we are told by Paul under inspiration that God likes things done in an orderly fashion.


So how does that relate to the human family? Is it possible then, that our creator wants his subjects to be organised and to do things in an orderly manner?
From Adam down until the nation of Israel come out of Egypt, the order of "rule" was a patriarchal system. When Gods people came out of Egypt, they were a nation of 6 million or so. The system of "rule" changed. Lets take a trip through history to see how things were "organised" and the difficulties.


ADAM – PATRIARCHS


When Adam and Eve were on earth, life was very simple. There was only the two of them. There was no great need for "organisation" as we know today, but still things were organised. There were given this command at Genesis 1:28 "Further, God blessed them and God said to them: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth." and at Genesis 2:16-17 "And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: "From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die."


This may not seem much, but it was organisation. They were not just placed on earth and left to see what would happen. They were given a job to do and told what they could not do.


They chose not to keep their one and only "do not". They used independent thinking from that of their creator and lost life, and paradise for all of us.


NOAH, as a patriarch, was commissioned to build an ark for himself, his family and animals in order to survived the deluge. Jehovah gave that commission to Noah, and not to all his family at different times. Noah conveyed that message to his family. That too was simple organisation. The same situation applied to the other patriarchal families mentioned in the Bible eg Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The patriarch was the head or leader of those small "organisations".


The conclusion I draw from such examples, is that right from the beginning of human history, Jehovah has done things in an orderly fashion, even though it was on a small scale.


After the flood we have the record of the PATRIARCHS continues with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


We know Abraham left the Chaldean city of Ur to live in tents. It was not a small family affair. He travelled with his father and nephew, Lot. Both Abraham and Lot had substantial households of immediate family, herds, and herdsman (see Genesis 12:4,5,10 - 13:12). Abraham’s household included 380 men, slaves, born into his household. (Genesis 14:14-16) who were trained enough to act like a small army. Through the time of the patriarchs we do not learn a great deal but we do learn that they were organised with the patriarch taking the lead.


The conclusion I draw from such examples, is that right from the beginning of human history, Jehovah has done things in an orderly fashion, even though it was on a small scale.


MOSES – KINGS


By the time of MOSES, things had some what changed. From dealing with family groups, there was now a considerable nation to deal with.


Moses was spared from death at birth, because it was Gods intent that Israel was to be freed by Moses. Forty years before Jehovah had planned to have the Israelites released from Egypt, Moses decided that he would try to have the nation freed from bondage. His intentions were honourable but it just was not time. In his feeble attempt, he killed a man. (Ex 2:11-15; Ac 7:23-29)


His hast and his murderous action did not exclude our God from using him. Moses had lessons to learn. While in Egypt he was instructed in all the knowledge of that country. In fact he became powerful in both words and deeds (Ac 7:20-22)


What did Moses have to learn? "The qualities of patience, meekness, humility, long-suffering, mildness of temper, self-control, and learning to wait on Jehovah needed to be developed in him to a higher degree, in order for him to be the fitting one to lead God’s people. He had to be groomed and prepared to endure the discouragements, disappointments, and hardships he would encounter, and to handle with loving-kindness, calmness, and strength the multitude of problems a great nation would present." (italics added) (it 2 p 435). From being a man that was powerful with words, he was now the meekest of all men on the earth. (Num 12:3). But, now he did not want to be used to free Israel.


At this point, we'll skip some time, as most people are aware of what happened.
The Bible tells us how the Israelites and a vast mixed company came out of the land of Egypt. Was this an organisation? Consider what the word organisation means. (see definition in previous article)


Moses was their go between (mediator), between God and the nation of Israel. For a while (besides having Aaron as his spokes person) he had sole control over the affairs of this nation. Later he was urged by his father in law to appoint chieftains to help solve problems. (Ex 18:5-7) (Ex 18:13-37)


 Moses was still their leader, but now there was on order of doing things, (priests and chieftains) to use our language, an organisation.


Some of the people had difficulty recognising the channel that God was using. For forty years they roamed the desert wilderness due to the nation listening to men and not to what God had to say. (Nu 13:2, 3, 8, 16, 25) Even thou there were problems amongst their company, they were still God's People.


In time even chieftains (appointed men) started to speak up against Moses, become independent thinkers. I've copied a section from it-2 p184


"During Israel’s wilderness trek Korah rebelled against the authority of Moses and Aaron, doing so in league with the Reubenites Dathan, Abiram, and On, as well as 250 "chieftains of the assembly" or "men of fame." (Nu 16:1, 2) They contended that "the whole assembly are all of them holy and Jehovah is in their midst," asking, "Why, then, should you lift yourselves up above the congregation of Jehovah?" (Nu 16:3-11) Moses later sent to call Dathan and Abiram, but they refused to be present, thinking Moses had no right to summon them. (Nu 16:12-15) Korah, his assembly, and High Priest Aaron were told to present themselves before Jehovah, all supplied with fire holders and burning incense.—Nu 16:16, 17.


The following day Korah and the 250 men with him, all carrying fire holders with burning incense, stood at the entrance of the tent of meeting with Moses and Aaron. Jehovah’s glory appeared to all the assembly and God spoke to Moses and Aaron, telling them to separate them selves from the midst of the assembly, "that I may exterminate them in an instant." However, Moses and Aaron interceded for the people, and God then directed Moses to have the assembly get away from the tabernacles of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. This was done. (Nu 16:18-27) Shortly thereafter, "the earth proceeded to open its mouth and to swallow up them and their households and all humankind that belonged to Korah and all the goods." They and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth covered them over.—Nu 16:28-34."


So Korah and his friends started to think independently from Jehovah's arrangement just as Satan did in the early part of mans history, and just as Adam and Eve did when they listened to Satan. The results were catastrophic.


There are many other example of Gods people (or some amongst their ranks) rebelling against organised procedure. But for now, back to Moses.


After being in the wilderness for some time, he (Moses) overstepped his authority by taking the credit for supplying water for the people. Because of this action, Moses had to be accountable for what he did. He was not allowed to enter the Promised Land, but he WAS NOT removed from his position of responsibility. (Nu 20:1-13; De 32:50-52; Ps 106:32, 33).


Jehovah had set up a way for things to be done (in our terms an organisation) and those that stayed by this arrangement entered the Promised Land.


The conclusion that may be drawn from the above is, Jehovah appointed an imperfect man (Mosses and later Joshua) to lead his people. Changes in the arrangement were made at times. Some of his people refused to stay by the arrangements (organisation) made, but God continued to use Moses and to stand by his people.


Before the kings JUDGES were appointed over the nation to guide and give some organisational structure to the nation. After a period of time the Israelites wanted to have king just like the nations around them had but for a period they had judged . These judges at times lead the Israelites in battle against enemies. This was not a highly structured organisation but it was still shows order. This from it-2 p. 134




Men raised up by Jehovah to deliver his people prior to the period of Israel’s human kings were known as judges. (Jg 2:16) Moses, as mediator of the Law covenant and God-appointed leader, judged Israel for 40 years. But the period of Judges, as usually viewed, began with Othniel, sometime after the death of Joshua, and extended until Samuel the prophet. Samuel is not usually counted among the Judges. So the period of the Judges extended about 300 years.—Jg 2:16; Ac 13:20.
The judges were selected and appointed by Jehovah from various tribes of Israel. Between Joshua and Samuel, 12 judges (not including Deborah) are named, as follows:
                                   Judge        Tribe
                                   Othniel      Judah
                                   Ehud         Benjamin
                                   Shamgar           (?)
                                   Barak        Naphtali (?)
                                   Gideon      Manasseh
                                   Tola          Issachar
                                   Jair            Manasseh
                                   Jephthah    Manasseh
                                   Ibzan         Zebulun (?)
                                   Elon          Zebulun
                                   Abdon       Ephraim
                                  Samson      Dan


The exact area over which each of the judges exercised jurisdiction and the dates of their judgeships cannot in every case be determined. Some may have judged contemporaneously in different sections of Israel, and there were periods of oppression intervening.




After the Judges came Kings. That implies a kingdom. The Israelite's had moved into a an era of greater organisation. I want to look at just one King. He had Gods favor but made some very serious mistakes, and yet God used him - gave him the  privilege – of penning portions of his Word the Bible. The example of this king has a direct bearing on the modern day "organisation" as an example dismiss a person from (the the case of the WTBTS aka JWs ) from being used by God because of some minor mistakes


DAVID showed great respect for Jehovah's organised arrangement. By the time of David, the nation of Israel had gone through several changes. After they had settled in the Promised Land, the people were governed by Judges. A Priestly system was in place for the spiritual upkeep of the nation. David was the second king for the nation. Saul was the first. Yes, Jehovah had organised his people into a solid nation.


When David was still very young, before Saul was dethroned by his death on the battlefield, he had been anointed as King designate. Saul, as the dully-appointed King, had gone astray after he began to think independently from Gods arrangement. "Saul’s sin consisted of his presumptuously going ahead with the sacrifice and not obeying Jehovah’s commandment, which had been given through his representative Samuel, to wait for Samuel to offer up the sacrifice. (Compare 1Sa 10:8.) As a consequence of this act, Saul’s kingdom was not to last.—1Sa 13:1-14." (It-2 p 871)


 When you read through the accounts it soon becomes clear that David respected Gods arrangement for things. Saul was out to kill David. David had opportunity and motive to kill Saul. David, however, recognised that it was not his place to make Saul step down from being King and to put himself in place (even though he WAS king designate to replace Saul). He waited on Jehovah to do things in his time. If you are not familiar with these accounts, the following reading may be advised.


1 Samuel 18:1-30; 19:1-18. 1 Samuel 26:1-25; 27:1-7; 31:1-6; 2 Samuel 1:26; 3:1-21; 5:1-10; 1 Chronicles 11:1-9.


David's kingship was not all-smooth sailing either. You are no doubt familiar with the account of David and Bathsheba recorded for us in 2 Samuel 11:1-27; 12:1-18; 1 Kings 1:1-48.


Yes David did receive some punishment for this act. (notice, though, that he did not receive the death penalty as the law required, God showed mercy). He was not removed as king, and, he was given the privilege of penning parts of the Bible.


Conclusions that can be drawn from this, is, David was an imperfect man that God used in overseeing his earthly arrangement (organisation). He (David) made a dreadful major mistake (that is mentioned above) but God continued to use him and give him a great privilege of writing parts of the Bible and of being a forefather to Jesus. So his very public mistakes DID NOT DISQUALIFY him from being used by God.

EPHESIANS 6:4

"And YOU, fathers, do not be irritating YOUR children, but go on bringing them up in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah"

NWT

Opponents to Jehovah's Witnesses say that they use Mind Control techniques in "recruiting" and keeping "recruits" especially in light of the above text that uses the words " mental-regulating". It is asserted this rendition is not correct, and it gives JWs the go ahead to manipulate their children. Is this the way JWs see this text? Is it a reasonable way to translate that passage?

 Please note what Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says about this word.

Noun: - "nouthesia (nouqetew, 3559), lit., "a putting in mind" (nous, "mind", tithemi, "to put"), is used in 1 Cor.10:11, of the purpose of the Scriptures; in Eph. 6:4, of which is administered by the Lord; "

Verb:- "noutheteo……. It is used (a) of instruction, (b)of warning"
Notice the different ways other translations put this passage:-
"bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord " (KJV)
"bring them up with Christian discipline and instruction" (TEV)
"bring them up with the loving discipline the Lord himself approves" (LB)
"bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord" (NIV)
"bring them up with Christian teaching in Christian discipline" (PME)
"in bringing them up correct them and guide them as the Lord does" (JB)
"bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (RSV)
"give them the instruction and the correction, which belong to a Christian upbringing" (NEV)
As we can see, this passage is translated differently by some of the most popular translations in English. We (JWs) find no objection in any of these renderings.
So are JWs encouraged to go into "mind control" so that an organisation can tell them what to do when teaching their children? Please notice the following quotes.

*** g74 2/8 8 How Can You Help Your Children? ***

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament comments on the verb form of the Greek word for mental-regulating:

"[It] describes an effect on the will and disposition, and it presupposes an opposition which has to be overcome. It seeks to correct the mind, to put right what is wrong, to improve the spiritual attitude. . . . It does not mean ‘to punish,’ but through the word . . . to cause the appeal to the moral consciousness to gain a hold over men and bring them to repentance and shame, so that punishment is superfluous."

*** g81 4/8 11 What Can Parents Do to Help? ***

On his own, (our children) he may never do it. The Bible indicates that a young child does not know "how to reject the bad and choose the good."—Isa. 7:16.

How Can a Child Be Taught This?

The heart must be reached. He must develop his own inner motivation to "reject the bad and choose the good." If not, he may simply put on a superficial shrewdness about staying out of trouble. So in addition to "discipline," parents must ‘bring up’ their children in the "mental-regulating of Jehovah."—Eph. 6:4.
This requires putting information into the child’s mind that will touch his heart. It should motivate him in a right way and warn him of future dangers. The Bible term "mental-regulating" includes "whatever is needed to cause the monition to be taken home, to be laid to heart."

*** w96 12/1 11 Parents, Find Pleasure in Your Children ***

"Mental-regulating of Jehovah" means regulating our thinking to conform to Jehovah’s will. Parents, then, must instill in the minds of their little ones Jehovah’s thinking on matters. And they must also imitate God’s example of providing compassionate discipline, or corrective training. (Psalm 103:10, 11; Proverbs 3:11, 12)

 This mental regulating is the instilling in our children Bible Principles and a love and desire to please our creator, not a mind control to an organisation.

Most of the material in the following essay is adapted from the "Trinity Exposed " Web site. I have added my own research as well as pre empting questions that might arise by Trinitarians.

JOHN 17:3

This is another text that a lot of people object too.

It reads in the NWT

 "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you,

the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth,

Jesus Christ."

Other translations that appear to be more popular in the English language do not use the phrase "taking in knowledge". Instead they say "that they may (or should) know thee" RSV, KJV, ASV. "by knowing you" The Living Bible. "to know you" The Revised Berkeley Version. "that they may know you" NIV.

On reading these translation, the reader gets to fell that salvation comes from just knowing God and his Son, that is alll they have to do is have a knowledge of God. Whereas the NWT we are told that it is an ongoing process, continuing gaining knowledge. This indicates more is involved than just knowing about God but a continual commitment in getting to know God.

The word in question know or knowledge, centres around the Greek word "GINOSKO" GINOSKO.

Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says

VINE'S NEW TESTAMENT WORD SEARCH -COMPLETE Know, Known, Knowledge, Unknown A-1, ginosko, [Verb, 1097] Signifies "to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand," or "to understand completely," e.g., Mark 13:28,29; John 13:12; 15:18; 21:17; 2 Cor. 8:9; Heb. 10:34; 1 John 2:5; 4:2,6 (twice),7,13; 5:2,20; in its past tenses it frequently means "to know in the sense of realizing," the aorist or point tense usually indicating definiteness, Matt. 13:11; Mark 7:24; John 7:26; in John 10:38 "that ye may know (aorist tense) and understand, (present tense);" John 19:4; Acts 1:7; 17:19; Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:11 (2nd part),14; 2 Cor. 2:4; Eph. 3:19; 6:22; Phil. 2:19; 3:10; 1 Thess. 3:5; 2 Tim. 2:19; Jas. 2:20; 1 John 2:13 (twice),14; 3:6; 4:8; 2 John 1:1; Rev. 2:24; 3:3,9. In the Passive Voice, it often signifies "to become known," e.g., Matt. 10:26; Phil. 4:5. In the sense of complete and absolute understanding on God's part, it is used e.g., in Luke 16:15; John 10:15 (of the Son as well as the Father); 1 Cor. 3:20. In Luke 12:46, AV, it is rendered "he is ... aware." In the NT ginosko frequently indicates a relation 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, e.g., especially of God's "knowledge," 1 Cor. 8:3, "if any man love God, the same is known of Him;" Gal. 4:9, "to be known of God;" here the "knowing" suggests approval and bears the meaning "to be approved;" so in 2 Tim. 2:19; cp. John 10:14,27; Gen. 18:19; Nah. 1:7; the relationship implied may involve remedial chastisement, Amos 3:2. The same idea of appreciation as well as "knowledge" underlies several statements concerning the "knowledge" of God and His truth on the part of believers, e.g., John 8:32; 14:20,31; 17:3; Gal. 4:9 (1st part); 1 John 2:3,13,14; 4:6,8,16; 5:20; such "knowledge" is obtained, not by mere intellectual activity, but by operation of the Holy Spirit consequent upon acceptance of Christ. Nor is such "knowledge" marked by finality; see e.g., 2 Pet. 3:18; Hos. 6:3, RV. The verb is also used to convey the thought of connection or union, as between man and woman, Matt. 1:25; Luke 1:34. A-2, oida, [Verb, 1492] from the same root as eidon, "to see," is a perfect tense with a present meaning, signifying, primarily, "to have seen or perceived;" hence, "to know, to have knowledge of," whether absolutely, as in Divine knowledge, e.g., Matt. 6:8,32; John 6:6,64; 8:14; 11:42; 13:11; 18:4; 2 Cor. 11:31; 2 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 2:2,9,13,19; 3:1,8,15; or in the case of human "knowledge," to know from observation, e.g, 1 Thess. 1:4,5; 2:1; 2 Thess. 3:7. The differences between ginosko (No. 1) and oida demand consideration: (a) ginosko, frequently suggests inception orprogress in "knowledge," while oida suggests fullness of "knowledge," e.g., John 8:55, "ye have not known Him" (ginosko), i.e., begun to "know," "but I know Him" (oida), i.e., "know Him perfectly;" John 13:7, "What I do thou knowest not now," i.e. Peter did not yet perceive (oida) its     significance, "but thou shalt understand," i.e., "get to know (ginosko), hereafter;" John 14:7, "If ye had known Me" (ginosko), i.e., "had definitely come to know Me," "ye would have known My Father also" (oida), i.e., "would have had perception of:" "from henceforth ye know Him" (ginosko), i.e., having unconsciously been coming to the Father, as the One who was in Him, they would now consciously be in the constant and progressive experience of "knowing" Him; in Mark 4:13, "Know ye not (oida) this parable? and how shall ye know (ginosko) all the parables?" (RV), i.e., "Do ye not understand this parable? How shall ye come to perceive all ..." the intimation being that the first parable is a leading and testing one; (b) while ginosko frequently implies an active     relation between the one who "knows" and the person or thing "known" (see No. 1, above), oida expresses the fact that the object has simply come within the scope of the "knower's" perception; thus in Matt. 7:23 "I never knew you" (ginosko) suggests "I have never been in approving connection with you," whereas in Matt. 25:12, "I know you not" (oida) suggests "you stand in no relation to Me." A-3, epiginosko, [Verb, 1921] denotes (a) "to observe, fully perceive, notice attentively, discern, recognize" (epi, "upon," and No. 1); it suggests generally a directive, a more special, recognition of the object "known" than does No. 1; it also may suggest advanced "knowledge" or special appreciation; thus, in Rom. 1:32, "knowing the ordinance of God" (epiginosko) means "knowing full well," whereas in verse Rom. 1:21 "knowing God" (ginosko) simply suggests that they could not avoid the perception. Sometimes epiginosko implies a special participation in the object "known," and gives greater weight to what is stated; thus in John 8:32, "ye shall know the truth," ginosko is used, whereas in 1 Tim. 4:3, "them that believe and know the truth," epiginosko lays stress on participation in the truth. Cp. the stronger statement in Col. 1:6 (epiginosko) with that in 2 Cor. 8:9 (ginosko), and the two verbs in 1 Cor. 13:12, "now I know in part (ginosko); but then shall I know (piginosko) even as also I have been known (epiginosko)," "a knowledge which perfectly unites the subject with the object; (b) "to discover, ascertain, determine," e.g., Luke 7:37; 23:7; Acts 9:30; 19:34; 22:29; 28:1; in Acts 24:11 the best mss. have this verb instead of No. 1; hence the RV, "take knowledge." J. Armitage Robinson (on Ephesians) points out that epignosis is "knowledge directed towards a particular object, perceiving, discerning," whereas gnosis is knowledge in the abstract. See ACKNOWLEDGE. A-4, proginosko, [Verb, 4267] "to know beforehand," is used (a) of the Divine "foreknowledge" concerning believers, Rom. 8:29; Israel, 11:2; Christ as the Lamb of God, 1 Pet. 1:20, RV, "foreknown" (AV, "foreordained"); (b) of human previous "knowledge," of a person, Acts 26:5, RV, "having knowledge of" (AV, "which knew"); of facts, 2 Pet. 3:17. See FOREKNOW. A-5, epistamai, [Verb, 1987] "to know, know of, understand" (probably an old Middle Voice form of ephistemi, "to set over"), is used in Mark 14:68, "understand," which follows oida "I (neither) know;" most frequently in the Acts, 10:28; 15:7; 18:25; 19:15,25; 20:18; 22:19; 24:10; 26:26; elsewhere, 1 Tim. 6:4; Heb. 11:8; Jas. 4:14; Jude 1:10. See UNDERSTAND. A-6, sunoida, [Verb, 4923] sun, "with," and No. 2, a perfect tense with a present meaning, denotes (a) "to share the knowledge of, be privy     to," Acts 5:2; (b) "to be conscious of," especially of guilty consciousness, 1 Cor. 4:4, "I know nothing against (AV, by) myself." The verb is connected with suneidon, found in Acts 12:12; 14:6 (in the best texts). See CONSIDER,PRIVY, WARE. A-7, agnoeo, [Verb, 50] "not to know, to be ignorant:"  A-8, gnorizo, [Verb, 1107] signifies (a) "to come to know, discover, know," Phil. 1:22, "I wot (not)," i.e., "I know not," "I have not come to know" (the RV, marg. renders it, as under (b), "I do not make known"); (b) "to make known," whether (I) communicating things "before unknown," Luke 2:15,17; in the latter some mss. have the verb diagnorizo (hence the AV, "made known abroad);" John 15:15, "I have made known;" 17:26; Acts 2:28; 7:13 (1st part), see Note (3) below; Rom. 9:22,23; 16:26 (Passive Voice); 2 Cor. 8:1, "we make known (to you)," RV, AV, "we do (you) to wit;" Eph. 1:9; 3:3,5,10 (all three in the Passive Voice); 6:19,21; Col. 1:27; 4:7,9, "shall make known" (AV, "shall declare"); 2 Pet. 1:16; or (II) reasserting things already "known," 1 Cor. 12:3, "I give (you) to understand" (the Apostle reaffirms what they knew); 1 Cor. 15:1, of the Gospel; Gal. 1:11 (he reminds them of what they well knew, the ground of his claim to Apostleship); Phil. 4:6 (Passive Voice), of requests to God.  See CERTIFY, DECLARE (Note),UNDERSTAND, WIT, WOT. Notes: (1) In 2 Tim. 3:10, AV, parakoloutheo, "to follow closely, follow as a standard of conduct," is translated "hast fully known" (RV, "didst follow"). See FOLLOW. (2) In 2 Tim. 4:17, AV, plerophoreo, "to fulfill, accomplish," is translated "might be fully known" (RV, "might be fully proclaimed"). See FULFILL. (3) In Acts 7:13, some mss. have the verb anagnorizo, "to make oneself known," "was made known," instead of No. 8 (which see). (4) In Acts 7:13 (2nd part) the AV, "was made known" translates the phrase phaneros ginomai, "to become manifest" (RV, "became manifest"). See MANIFEST. (5) For diagnorizo, "to make known," in Luke 2:17, see No. 8. (6) For diagnosko, in Acts 24:22, "I will know the uttermost of,"  B-1, gnostos, [Adjective, 1110]  later form of gnostos (from No. 1), most frequently denotes "known;" it is used ten times in the Acts, always with that meaning (save in Acts 4:16, where it means "notable"); twice in the Gospel of John, John 18:15,16; in Luke 2:44; 23:49 it denotes "acquaintance;" elsewhere only in Rom. 1:19, "(that which) may be known (of God)," lit., "the knowable of God," referring to the physical universe, in the creation of which God has made Himself "knowable," that is, by the exercise of man's natural faculties, without such supernatural revelations as those given to Israel.  B-2, phaneros, [Adjective, 5318] "visible, manifest," is translated "known" in Matt. 12:16; Mark 3:12. B-3, epistemon, [Adjective, 1990] akin to A, No. 5, "knowing, skilled," is used in Jas. 3:13, AV, "endued with knowledge" (RV "understanding"). B-4, agnostos, [Adjective, 57] the negative of No. 1, "unknown," is found in Acts 17:23. C-1, gnosis, [Noun, 1108] primarily "a seeking to know, an enquiry, investigation" (akin to A, No. 1), denotes, in the NT, "knowledge," especially of spiritual truth; it is used (a) absolutely, in Luke 11:52; Rom. 2:20; 15:14; 1 Cor. 1:5; 8:1 (twice),7,10,11; 13:2,8; 14:6; 2 Cor. 6:6; 8:7; 11:6; Eph. 3:19; Col. 2:3; 1 Pet. 3:7; 2 Pet. 1:5,6; (b) with an object: in respect of (1) God, 2 Cor. 2:14; 10:5; (2) the glory of God, 2 Cor. 4:6; (3) Christ Jesus, Phil. 3:8; 2 Pet. 3:18; (4) salvation, Luke 1:77; (c) subjectively, of God's "knowledge," Rom. 11:33; the word of "knowledge," 1 Cor. 12:8; "knowledge" falsely so called, 1 Tim. 6:20. C-2, epignosis, [Noun, 1922] akin to A, No. 3, denotes "exact or full knowledge, discernment, recognition," and is a strengthened form of No. 1, expressing a fuller or a full "knowledge," a greater participation by the "knower" in the object "known," thus more powerfully influencing him. It is not found in the Gospels and Acts. Paul uses it 15 times (16 if Heb. 10:26 is included) out of the 20 occurrences; Peter 4 times, all in his 2nd Epistle. Contrast Rom. 1:28 (epignosis) with the simple verb in Rom. 1:21. "In all the four Epistles of the first Roman captivity it is an element in the Apostle's opening prayer for his correspondents' well-being, Phil. 1:9; Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:9; Philem. 1:6" (Lightfoot). It is used with reference to God in Rom. 1:28; 10:2; Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:10; 2 Pet. 1:3; God and Christ, 2 Pet. 1:2; Christ, Eph. 4:13; 2 Pet. 1:8; 2:20; the will of the Lord, Col. 1:9; every good thing, Philem. 1:6, RV (AV, "acknowledging"); the truth, 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25, RV; 3:7; Titus 1:1, RV; the mystery of God. Col. 2:2, RV, "(that they) may know" (AV, "to the acknowledgment of"), lit., "into a full knowledge." It is used without the mention of an object in Phil. 1:9; Col. 3:10, RV, "(renewed) unto knowledge."  C-3, agnosia, [Noun, 56] the negative of No. 1, "ignorance," is rendered "no knowledge" in 1 Cor. 15:34, RV (AV, "not the knowledge"); in 1 Pet. 2:15, ignorance. Note: In Eph. 3:4, AV, sunesis, "understanding," is translated "knowledge;" RV, "understanding." For kardiognostes

"GINOSKO … signifies to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, understand, or to understand completely"

A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament by G. Abbott-Smith says "to be taking in knowledge, come to know, recognise, perceive, understand…. Of the knowledge of divine things, of God and Christ… Jo 17:3

 The Greek word verb GINOSKO  denotes the act of knowing through experience. Getting to know our Creator and his Son is always ongoing, just as it takes a lifetime to get to really know a close friend or relative. And the only way that we can really get to know our God is by regular and consistent study of his word.

JOHN 1:3

"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

NWT

The controversy with this text are the words "through" and "apart from".
Where as the JKV uses the word "by", most others use the word "through" such as TEV, NIV, PME, JB, RSV, and NEV. The Living Bible deviates from these in its rendering. It misses both lots of words. "He created everything there is - nothing exists that he did not make" This makes a very clear statement that everything was made by Jesus and leaves no room for the idea that Jesus could have been made.

The Greek word for "through" is a preposition "denoting a channel of an act". Or, according to my English dictionary, "by means off". That does not indicate equality especially in the context of John.

Instead of the words "apart from", all modern translation that I have looked at say "without". For example " All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made" (KJV).

The use of the words "by" and "without" in the KJV also gives the apparent meaning that all Creation could not have happened unless The Word (Jesus) did it and that everything that exists was made by Jesus. Where as the way the NWT uses "apart from" the reader gets the impression that every thing else was created by (through) Jesus, except for Jesus. JWs use this text (along with several others) to support the idea that Jesus was created.

The use of the English word "without" is quite within the translation oundaries. In English, the word "without" can have two subtly different meanings. It is therefore important to understand which meaning we should assign to the word. We also need to decide if the words "apart from" convey in English a clearer understanding of the original writers intent.

"Without" is also a preposition and, denotes "not having/not with". If some one was to say that they were without medical insurance, this would convey the idea to their listeners that they are no part of the group of people that do have such insurance. This is the way it reads in most Modern Translations one feels that Jesus was "not with", or apart of, the rest of creation.

Also, the word "without" can signify "at a space, i.e. separately or apart from". For example someone on a journey to a different country might say that they are here without their family. This tells the audience that they are part of a group of people that make up a family but at the moment this person is not with them. If we are to take this meaning then this indicates that Jesus (the Word) was used to create everything else after (or separately, apart from) himself. (This idea is consistent with Col.1:15..... )

There is another little problem here that I see. If we are to take the words of John to mean as they appear to do in the JKV, what do the words " All things" signify? Surely it would lead one to conclude that the Father was created by The Word as well, would it not?

What about the context of the Book of John? Does that add any other support to the idea that Jesus was not equal to God and thus support the NWT rendering of John 1:3?

In John 1:6 we are told about John the Baptiser as "a man sent from God".(KJV) I understand that John was a different person to God, he had a message, and God "sent" him.

John used similar language in relation to Jesus as noted in the following (KJV)
John 3:17 " For God sent not his Son ....... that the world through him..." (please notice the use of the word through here as well indicating at least two individuals, one superior to the other, the latter doing the work of the superior. (Some translations mentioned above say "sent". NIV, PME, JB, RSV, NEV all say "through")

John 5:19 " The Son can do nothing of himself," indicating that there is a superior person in charge
"the Son does nothing on his own" TEV
"the Son can nothing of his own accord" PME, RSV
"the Son can do nothing by himself"JB, NEB, NIV

John 5:23 "which hath sent him"
AS ABOVE SIMILAR IDEAS IN OTHER TRANSLATIONS

John 5:30 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the father which hath sent me.(KJV)

John 6:57 "As the living Father hath sent me..."(KJV)

John 17:3 "...that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."(KJV)

These readings tell me that John did not view Jesus as being equal to his Father. Therefore, the way that the NWT has translated John 1:3 fits into the context of the chapter but also the Apistle of John From simple plain reading these tell me that they are not equal.