The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
EastwardTraveler
Student
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:43 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga

The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #1

Post by EastwardTraveler »

Here is a thread I started on another forum, but wanted to put it up here as well. I am new here, but I am already enjoying this forum much better. Less trolls and better discussion and attitudes.
*********************************************

This is a response to a tread about John 1:1 and how the New World Translation corrects this mistake about calling the Word "God". The NWT claims to fix this issue by calling the Word "a god". Next the assertion is there are many gods in the Bible and being a god is different than being God, implying that God is not a god. Being a god is said to be more of a title or status, and nothing could be further from the truth.

First there is a word play here does not exist in the Hebrew. There is no capitalization in Hebrew, so in English terms, there is no big or little g. The context of the scripture would have let the reader know which god is being talked about. Even from a grammatical point of view this changes nothing. Here is what I mean. It is grammatically correct and scripturally correct for me to say that "God is a god". God is just a proper pronoun letting us know which god we are talking about. A god is not a status but the nature of something. God is a god because he happens to be a spiritually divine being.

So changing John 1:1 does not change the problem of the Word being called God. You are still left with a big problem of the identity of Jesus if he was by nature an elohim.

The next tactic that will be used to to bring up that there are many gods in the Bible. This is a silly argument, because all of the other gods of the Bible are false gods or men calling themselves gods. Neither of the two pleases God, so I find it odd that this is used to justify the Word being called a god/elohim and he not be God. Lets break it down even further. Just because men made up gods and created images to them, does not make them a real god. Same if a man calls himself or another person a god, it does not make them a true god. Again this does not please God to do so.

Here is my beleif, that God/elohim is the only real god/elohim in the scriptures. All other gods/elohim are false gods/elohim. No where in scripture is it a good thing to be call a god/elohim if the thing being talked about is not God himself.

While I started off mentioning The NWT I am eager to hear from all who do not believe that Jesus is God, not just Jehovahs Witness. I prefer not to hear from Trinitarians and Unitarians on this post, but ultimately am not opposed to it.

My last request is that for those responding, try and keep it short. I do not want a page of verses quoted and a dissertation on each on. Lets try and keep it to a verse or two at a time so we can actually have a discussion that is meaningful.

Thanks and look forward to hearing from all of you out there.

101G
Apprentice
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:58 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #111

Post by 101G »

2timothy316 wrote:
101G wrote:
this is how one expose false doctrine. because many say JESUS is not Yahweh, or Jehovah as they believe. and when this is pointed out to them they are in shock.
Shock? Not quite.

A father says "I'll send my child to you" and a mother says the same thing to someone else, this doesn't mean they are the same person. A president says, "I'll send my employee to pick up coffee" and the vice-president says the same thing, does that make them the same person? No. If we use exegesis what we can conclude from the two scriptures is that both Jesus and Jehovah command angels.

So the interpretation that Jehovah and Jesus are the same person because they both said, 'my angel' is what is called, eisegesis. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,� which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. It's known to be a flawed way to interpret the Bible.
Thanks for the post, so tell me, who do you say sent his angel in response to Revelation 1:1 what's your exegesis of these scripture, I'll be looking for your answer.
thanks in advance.

Peace in Christ Yeshua.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #112

Post by 2timothy316 »

101G wrote:
2timothy316 wrote:
101G wrote:
this is how one expose false doctrine. because many say JESUS is not Yahweh, or Jehovah as they believe. and when this is pointed out to them they are in shock.
Shock? Not quite.

A father says "I'll send my child to you" and a mother says the same thing to someone else, this doesn't mean they are the same person. A president says, "I'll send my employee to pick up coffee" and the vice-president says the same thing, does that make them the same person? No. If we use exegesis what we can conclude from the two scriptures is that both Jesus and Jehovah command angels.

So the interpretation that Jehovah and Jesus are the same person because they both said, 'my angel' is what is called, eisegesis. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,� which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. It's known to be a flawed way to interpret the Bible.
Thanks for the post, so tell me, who do you say sent his angel in response to Revelation 1:1 what's your exegesis of these scripture, I'll be looking for your answer.
thanks in advance.

Peace in Christ Yeshua.
Rev 1:1 says, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John."

Jehovah God gave Jesus information, that information was passed to an angel by Jesus and that angel gave the information to John to write.

Jehovah is the source of the command and everything goes through Jesus. This shows there is a chain of command. Which the 'Jehovah is Jesus' doctrine doesn't support. If Jehovah is Jesus or God is Jesus why is God giving something to himself? It makes no sense.

The only thing that makes any sense is Jehovah wants an angel sent, He tells Jesus to send an angel, the angels are under Jesus command. One can say the angel was sent by both Jehovah and Jesus and it would be true.

101G
Apprentice
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:58 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #113

Post by 101G »

2timothy316 wrote:
101G wrote:
2timothy316 wrote:
101G wrote:
this is how one expose false doctrine. because many say JESUS is not Yahweh, or Jehovah as they believe. and when this is pointed out to them they are in shock.
Shock? Not quite.

A father says "I'll send my child to you" and a mother says the same thing to someone else, this doesn't mean they are the same person. A president says, "I'll send my employee to pick up coffee" and the vice-president says the same thing, does that make them the same person? No. If we use exegesis what we can conclude from the two scriptures is that both Jesus and Jehovah command angels.

So the interpretation that Jehovah and Jesus are the same person because they both said, 'my angel' is what is called, eisegesis. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,� which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. It's known to be a flawed way to interpret the Bible.
Thanks for the post, so tell me, who do you say sent his angel in response to Revelation 1:1 what's your exegesis of these scripture, I'll be looking for your answer.
thanks in advance.

Peace in Christ Yeshua.
Rev 1:1 says, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John."

Jehovah God gave Jesus information, that information was passed to an angel by Jesus and that angel gave the information to John to write.

Jehovah is the source of the command and everything goes through Jesus. This shows there is a chain of command. Which the 'Jehovah is Jesus' doctrine doesn't support. If Jehovah is Jesus or God is Jesus why is God giving something to himself? It makes no sense.

So if Jehovah wants an angel sent, He tells Jesus to send an angel, the angels are under Jesus command, one can say the angel was sent by both Jehovah and Jesus and it would be true.
thanks for the response, but I must disagree. Revelation 22:6 clearly states, according to the NWT that Jehovah sent the angel, please check this out in the NWT.

so your basis of truth is in error.

read Revelation 22:6 according to the NWT and get back with me. and tell us is Jehovah sent his angel or did the angel said Jehovah told Jesus to sent his angel. which one?

thanks again,

Peace in Christ Yeshua.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #114

Post by 2timothy316 »

101G wrote:
2timothy316 wrote:
101G wrote:
2timothy316 wrote:
101G wrote:
this is how one expose false doctrine. because many say JESUS is not Yahweh, or Jehovah as they believe. and when this is pointed out to them they are in shock.
Shock? Not quite.

A father says "I'll send my child to you" and a mother says the same thing to someone else, this doesn't mean they are the same person. A president says, "I'll send my employee to pick up coffee" and the vice-president says the same thing, does that make them the same person? No. If we use exegesis what we can conclude from the two scriptures is that both Jesus and Jehovah command angels.

So the interpretation that Jehovah and Jesus are the same person because they both said, 'my angel' is what is called, eisegesis. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,� which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. It's known to be a flawed way to interpret the Bible.
Thanks for the post, so tell me, who do you say sent his angel in response to Revelation 1:1 what's your exegesis of these scripture, I'll be looking for your answer.
thanks in advance.

Peace in Christ Yeshua.
Rev 1:1 says, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John."

Jehovah God gave Jesus information, that information was passed to an angel by Jesus and that angel gave the information to John to write.

Jehovah is the source of the command and everything goes through Jesus. This shows there is a chain of command. Which the 'Jehovah is Jesus' doctrine doesn't support. If Jehovah is Jesus or God is Jesus why is God giving something to himself? It makes no sense.

So if Jehovah wants an angel sent, He tells Jesus to send an angel, the angels are under Jesus command, one can say the angel was sent by both Jehovah and Jesus and it would be true.
thanks for the response, but I must disagree. Revelation 22:6 clearly states, according to the NWT that Jehovah sent the angel, please check this out in the NWT.

so your basis of truth is in error.

read Revelation 22:6 according to the NWT and get back with me. and tell us is Jehovah sent his angel or did the angel said Jehovah told Jesus to sent his angel. which one?

thanks again,

Peace in Christ Yeshua.
Just because you disagree don't make it an error. I'm very familiar with the NWT. The will of Jesus is to do the will of his Father. Both using a possessive noun to describe an angel doesn't prove that Jehovah and Jesus are the same. All it proves is that two can claim an angel as their own. Just like my parents that are 2 different people can call me their own.

It can be said that Jehovah sent his angel because Jesus acts on behalf of his God. John 5:19 says, "So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does." The closeness of Jesus with the will of his Father is certainly made clear in the whole chapter of Rev 22. Even in verse 3 it says, "the throne of God and of the Lamb". This is not a literal throne but it represents power to rule. Rev 3:21 says, "To the one who conquers, I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne." If Jesus is God why did take his Father's throne? Wouldn't he already have been on the throne? If Jesus was Jehovah God didn't he already have the power to rule?

Could you answer a question for me? If Jesus is God why does Rev 1:1 say, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him"? If Jesus was God why didn't Jesus already know the information?

101G
Apprentice
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:58 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #115

Post by 101G »

2timothy316 wrote:
101G wrote:
2timothy316 wrote:
101G wrote:
2timothy316 wrote:
101G wrote:
this is how one expose false doctrine. because many say JESUS is not Yahweh, or Jehovah as they believe. and when this is pointed out to them they are in shock.
Shock? Not quite.

A father says "I'll send my child to you" and a mother says the same thing to someone else, this doesn't mean they are the same person. A president says, "I'll send my employee to pick up coffee" and the vice-president says the same thing, does that make them the same person? No. If we use exegesis what we can conclude from the two scriptures is that both Jesus and Jehovah command angels.

So the interpretation that Jehovah and Jesus are the same person because they both said, 'my angel' is what is called, eisegesis. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,� which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. It's known to be a flawed way to interpret the Bible.
Thanks for the post, so tell me, who do you say sent his angel in response to Revelation 1:1 what's your exegesis of these scripture, I'll be looking for your answer.
thanks in advance.

Peace in Christ Yeshua.
Rev 1:1 says, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John."

Jehovah God gave Jesus information, that information was passed to an angel by Jesus and that angel gave the information to John to write.

Jehovah is the source of the command and everything goes through Jesus. This shows there is a chain of command. Which the 'Jehovah is Jesus' doctrine doesn't support. If Jehovah is Jesus or God is Jesus why is God giving something to himself? It makes no sense.

So if Jehovah wants an angel sent, He tells Jesus to send an angel, the angels are under Jesus command, one can say the angel was sent by both Jehovah and Jesus and it would be true.
thanks for the response, but I must disagree. Revelation 22:6 clearly states, according to the NWT that Jehovah sent the angel, please check this out in the NWT.

so your basis of truth is in error.

read Revelation 22:6 according to the NWT and get back with me. and tell us is Jehovah sent his angel or did the angel said Jehovah told Jesus to sent his angel. which one?

thanks again,

Peace in Christ Yeshua.
Just because you disagree don't make it an error.

Jehovah did send his angel because Jesus acts on behalf of his God. John 5:19 says, "So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does."

Could you answer a question for me? If Jesus is God why does Rev 1:1 say, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him"? If Jesus was God why didn't Jesus already know the information?
sure I will answer you, and then answer your question

I must disagree again, I used scripture to correct your assertion. And again I must disagree, not to just to disagree, No because you used a scripture that have nothing to do with our topic. But since you went there I must correct it by “SCRIPTURE�.

In John 5:19 that you used, this is the Lord Speaking of himself as the “ARM� of God in Flesh. Meaning he have the power to carry out his commands while in FLESH, under the authority of the Spirit. Example. do your arm do anything on it own.? no, of course not. Your arm takes direction from your brain. Scripture, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.�

See, your “OWN� arm is under your control. just as God's "OWN" ARM is under his control.Another example. Our armed (arm) forces have the power to fight, but it just don’t jump up and start fighting on it’s own, it must be authorize to fight. Now with that in mine let’s see it clearly in the bible. when Sennacherib invaded Judah, Hezekiah fortifies himself, and encourages his people, listen, 2 Chronicles 32:7 "Be strong and courageous, be not afraid nor dismayed for the king of Assyria, nor for all the multitude that is with him: for there be more with us than with him:
2 Chronicles 32:8 "With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah�.

That Arm of FLESH that Sennacherib had with him was his “ARMY, his power�. and Christ is the Power of God in "FLESH", scripture, 1 Corinthians 1:24 "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God�.

So by being God's "OWN" ARMY in “FLESH� he could do nothing of himself, as with an army it’s under authority of the King or the president or the person in charge. Jesus the Christ is our example in Flesh, so like wise we cannot do nothing of ourselves.

So your scripture helps you none.

That bring us right back to my question, again I ask you according to Revelation 22:6 who sent his angel? Please answer without going around the world.

Thanks in advance.

Peace in Christ Yeshua.

PS,
then you asked, "Could you answer a question for me? If Jesus is God why does Rev 1:1 say, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him"? If Jesus was God why didn't Jesus already know the information?"
sure follow me,

#1. it's a Revelation "of" not "by". understand, "of" is a preposition that translates the genitive case of nouns, with various shades of meaning. Of these the subjective and objective are mentioned here. my source of this definition, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words . seethe Lord Jesus is the OBJECTIVE of the SUBJECTIVE, which means God shared in flesh is the same person. see, "of" translate the genitive noun. so when the scripture, say "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him" it is saying the Revelation of God "HIMSELF in Flesh.

now the second Part of your question. " If Jesus was God why didn't Jesus already know the information?". it's a Godly principle call the "WILL". without any technical explanation, I'll be straight to the point and quick. scripture, Matthew 6:3 "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth". STOP, you know exactly what your right and left hands are doing .... right. but there is something called the will. example, if you go to a priest and tell them something in confidentiality they cannot speak of it right, well that human of saying I don't know. but with God it's different. scripture, Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah". and in this new covenant he said this at verse 34, " And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more". STOP, how can God almighty not remember ? because he choose not to, it's an act of his "WILL". he said he "will" not remember.

ok, let's go back to Matthew 6:3 "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth". now, lets see this will of God in not knowing. scripture, Revelation 5:1 "And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals". this book contain all the future events, now watch what happens,

Revelation 5:2 "And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

Revelation 5:3 "And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

Revelation 5:4 "And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

Revelation 5:5 "And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Revelation 5:6 "And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth

Revelation 5:7 "And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne".

did you see it? if not in verse 7 the ROOT of David took the book out of his ..... "RIGHT" hand. ...... Right hand? yes now go back to Matthew 6:3 "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth".

by taking the book out of his "RIGHT" hand this is symbolic of the Godly principle of his will not to know, as found in Matthew 6:3, and in Jer 31.

but here's the big Revelation, it said the ROOT, not the Offspring took the BOOK. the Root is the Spirit, God. and Jesus is the Offspring Spirit God, the SAME PERSON, supportive scripture, Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star". see Jesus is the ROOT, and it is Jesus the High Priest who sits on the throne. for a sitting High Priest is finish from his Work.

so that answers all of your questions.

Peace in Christ Yeshua, JESUS.

EastwardTraveler
Student
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:43 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #116

Post by EastwardTraveler »

[Replying to 101G]

So I tend to agree with you and your stance in Revelation, but was just stating that it is a different arguement. You said they,the JW's, was going to have a problem with their translation because of Revelation and I just wanted to point that I didnt see one. The issue of Revelation 22 can stand alone on its own is all i meant.

As for the the word elohim, elohim is not exclusively a plural word. It is a morphalogically plural and it is the verb that determines whether the noun is plural or not. I know this is taught to many Christians, but it is incorrect. Just so you know I believe in the plurality in the godhead, but we must do so correctly and teach correctly whereever we can. It only hurts us in the long run not to do so.

Just so we are tracking I believe as you do in who Jesus is. It is just that my point in this thread is strictly on Jesus being called an el or elohim. [/b][/i][/u]

EastwardTraveler
Student
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:43 am
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #117

Post by EastwardTraveler »

[Replying to post 108 by 2timothy316]

Is that not what hou are doing? Taking your example and plugging it in to fit your view. Seems like it to me. Not saying your are wrong or right in your final conclusion but you seem to be doing the same thing.

101G
Apprentice
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:58 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

Post #118

Post by 101G »

EastwardTraveler wrote: [Replying to 101G]

So I tend to agree with you and your stance in Revelation, but was just stating that it is a different arguement. You said they,the JW's, was going to have a problem with their translation because of Revelation and I just wanted to point that I didnt see one. The issue of Revelation 22 can stand alone on its own is all i meant.

As for the the word elohim, elohim is not exclusively a plural word. It is a morphalogically plural and it is the verb that determines whether the noun is plural or not. I know this is taught to many Christians, but it is incorrect. Just so you know I believe in the plurality in the godhead, but we must do so correctly and teach correctly whereever we can. It only hurts us in the long run not to do so.

Just so we are tracking I believe as you do in who Jesus is. It is just that my point in this thread is strictly on Jesus being called an el or elohim. [/b][/i][/u]
First thanks for the response, yes I believe that we're on the right track, but let's clear up this on the definition of "Elohim" as a morphalogically plural. please give the dictionary that you're using to get that definition, I would like to check it out.

I'm using the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments, and it defines ""Elohim" as,
H430 �ֱלֹהִי� 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
�ֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433

Notice definition #3. this is consistence with what the Greek describe a plurality as in G243 Allos. there I'm using the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words for the definition of G243 Allos.

again, both definitions are consistence with what is described in Genesis 1:1 to John 1:1, to Revelation 1:1, which is plainly seen in Phil 2:6. meaning, these definitions are consistence with the whole bible. and it answers all and every question concering the Godhead.

so again, thanks for the discussion.

Peace in Yeshua, the Christ Jesus.

brianbbs67
Guru
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:07 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #119

Post by brianbbs67 »

Revelations 22:6 is not a mystery. Read the words of the , oft inaccurate NKJ, it seems right here. God orders it Christ orders it to the messenger and the messenger does.

ImageIMG_0992 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

ImageIMG_0993 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

ImageIMG_0994 by brianbbs67, on Flickr[/img]

101G
Apprentice
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:58 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #120

Post by 101G »

brianbbs67 wrote: Revelations 22:6 is not a mystery. Read the words of the , oft inaccurate NKJ, it seems right here. God orders it Christ orders it to the messenger and the messenger does.

ImageIMG_0992 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

ImageIMG_0993 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

ImageIMG_0994 by brianbbs67, on Flickr[/img]

GINOLJC, to all. yes, Revelation 22:6 is no mystery, the Lord God of the Holy Prophets is JESUS, who is the Holy Spirit, that is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. the ONE true God.

these new translation try to turn the words of God to fit their thinking of what is conveyed in the scriptures. get the real KJV and let the Holy God reveal himself to you.

Peace in Christ Yeshua, Jesus.

PS, if you look at the first pic, verse 4 says it all. "they shall see his face", not their faces, no, "his" face. one person.

Post Reply