In 1950 the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS – the official corporation of Jehovah’s Witnesses) published its own translation of the New Testament. They called it the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. In 1961, the society added the Old Testament and published them both as the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT). In the years before those books were released, Jehovah’s Witnesses used a variety of translations, many of which were not widely circulated due to their bizarre renderings of key passages, particularly in the New Testament.
The earliest editions of the NWT were easily identified because they had a bright solid green hardcover. One critic of the book, the late William Cetnar, himself a former Jehovah’s Witness, humorously referred to it as “the Green Phantom.” The reason he called it that was because nowhere was it said who the committee members were that had done the translation work. They were “phantom” translators.
Many years later it became known who composed the committee. Raymond Franz (1922 – 2010), a disenchanted onetime member of the WBTS’ highest ruling body (the Governing Body) provided the answer in his 1980 book, Crisis of Conscience. He stated that the translation committee consisted of then Governing Body members George Gangas (1897 – 1994), Albert Schroeder (1911 – 2006), Fredrick Franz (1893 – 1992), and then WBTS President, Nathan Knorr (1905 – 1977). “Fred Franz (Raymond Franz’s uncle, who later became WBTS President), however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, but was only self-taught in Hebrew” (Crisis of Conscience, 50).
In 1984, the WBTS made a few minor revisions to the 1961 edition. They replaced the ugly green cover with a more traditional black and used an easier to read text font. In any case, the newer edition had no real changes in the texts of the Old or New Testaments.
The NWT quickly became the Bible of choice (or requirement) for all Jehovah’s Witnesses. The problem was that it was full of biased and, in many cases, outright distorted renderings of key biblical passages, especially those addressing the deity of Jesus Christ. Of course, the WBTS vehemently denies the full deity of Jesus Christ and the historic doctrine of the Holy Trinity. In their view, only the Father, that is Jehovah, is the one true God. Jesus was, in his preexistence, a created super angel named Michael. He was in no way equal in power or majesty to Jehovah. The WBTS also denies the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit. For them, the “holy spirit” is the non-personal active force of Jehovah (in the NWT “holy spirit” is never capitalized). We presented a detailed evaluation on the NWT on this website in 2011 (see it here: http://www.marketfaith.org/the-jehovahs-witnesses-bible-is-it-reliable/).
In 2013 the WBTS released a newer revised version of the NWT. I have not seen a print copy of the new edition. Apparently it has a white cover. Nonetheless, both the 1984 and 2013 NWT editions are available online for reading or downloading at the official Jehovah’s Witnesses website: http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible. The new online edition states in its foreword: “This revised edition has built on the fine foundation laid in previous editions of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a Bible that was first released more than 60 years ago. However, the English language has changed during the past half century. Such change prompted current members of the New World Bible Translation Committee to initiate this comprehensive revision. Our goal has been to produce a translation that is not only faithful to the original texts but also clear and easy to read.”
As with the initial edition, the translation revision committee members are not named (at least nowhere that I have been able to find). We can only assume they are ranking members of the WBTS hierarchy. In any case, in this article we will examine some of the key passages in the New Testament that were in past NWT editions clearly mistranslated. We will analyze them and determine if the new revised version has corrected those biased renderings and ascertain what consequences they may have on WBTS theology.
JOHN 1:1 – We will first look at what is the most significant verse in the New Testament regarding the deity of Christ, John 1:1. The older 1984 NWT version had it this way: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” The 2013 edition has it this way: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Notice that the 1984 edition put the definite article “[the]” in brackets in the first phrase. The 2013 edition removes the brackets. The brackets were included to indicate that the word does not appear in any Greek text. In this case, however, the brackets were really unnecessary, as nearly every translator agrees “the” belongs there in this context.
Note however that in the ending phrase, both the 1984 and 2013 NWT editions put the indefinite article “a” before “god.” The word “a” also is not in the Greek text. The problem is that no other standard translation adds that word and all credible Greek scholars agree that it does not belong there. The WBTS places it in that context so that “the Word” (the preexistent Jesus) is not regarded as equal to Jehovah God. This is a clear distortion of the text to accommodate WBTS theology. The New American Standard Bible (NASB), like most other standard English versions, renders it thusly: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The context clearly equates the Word with God.
JOHN 8:58 – Another important passage in John’s Gospel is in verse 8:58. The older NWT editions rendered this verse: “Jesus said to them, ‘Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.’” In this case, the 2013 version renders it exactly the same way. The NASB and nearly every other translation renders it, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.’” The term “I am” is a definite allusion to the Old Testament name of God (YHWH or Jehovah), which is a derivative of the Hebrew word for “I am.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses intentionally changed the tense to disguise the self-identification of Jesus with God. We know, however, that Jesus was making the claim to deity because the Jews immediately took up stones to execute Him for what they regarded as blasphemy. The WBTS, of course, cannot tolerate that interpretation.
ACTS 10:36 – Here is another passage where the NWT mistranslated the passage to obfuscate Jesus’ deity. The NASB renders that verse: “The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all).” The writer, Luke, clearly calls Jesus “Lord of all” identifying Him as equal with God. The 1984 NWT had that verse like this: “He sent out the word to the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus Christ: this One is Lord of all [others].” Notice the translators added the word “[others]” in brackets to the end of the verse. Remember, when the NWT puts a word in brackets or parentheses, it means it is not actually in the Greek text. This addition was made obviously to diminish the implication that Jesus is “Lord of all (that is, everything – not just “all [others]”)” and thus is God.
Oddly enough, the latest NWT version renders Acts 10:36 as, “He sent out the word to the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus Christ – this one is Lord of all.” For some reason the translators did not repeat their earlier unwarranted addition of “[others].” This translation does appear to be an improvement and the translators of the revision must have anguished over this change because they surely realize the implications of calling Jesus “Lord of all.” However, appearances are not always what they seem. Note that the 2013 revision editors, after removing “[others],” also altered the phrase “this One is Lord” by using the lower case in the word “one” in order to eliminate any implication that the phrase affirms Jesus’ deity.
COLOSSIANS 1:15-20 – Perhaps one of the most significant passages in the New Testament regarding the full deity of Jesus is Colossians 1:15-20.
The NASB accurately translates this passage this way:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
The WBTS in the 1984 NWT translates that passage like this:
“15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things by making peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.”
The 2013 online edition renders it like this:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because God was pleased to have all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens.
Can you detect the subtle changes the WBTS made in the newer edition? We will examine them, but first, one phrase they did not alter is in verse 15. The WBTS interprets the word “firstborn” in verse 15 to mean “first-created” to make it conform to its theology that Jesus is a created being and is less than God. However, the firstborn (prototokos) principle in Hebrew parlance refers to privilege and superiority, not to priority in time. The phrase means that Jesus, as God, is superior to all creation. The verses that follow (vss. 16-19) make this interpretation evident.
So, now let’s examine some changes in the 2013 NWT from 1984 and how they both contrast with the actual translation. To start with, in the 1984 and previous editions, the WBTS presumptuously added to its translation of verses 16-20 by inserting the word “[other]” five times in several verses (vss. 15, 16, 17, and 20). The word “[other]” is conspicuous because they used brackets (or parentheses) where no word appears in the Greek text. This unwarranted addition to the text was made so the passage would conform to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theological position about the preexistent Jesus. The WBTS contends that Jesus was Michael, Jehovah’s first created being, and was not the ultimate creator of “all things” (panta or pantas – literally everything that exists) in the universe. According to WBTS theology Michael (Jesus) only assisted Jehovah to make all “other” things.
Many times I have shown this passage to Jehovah’s Witnesses and asked them why the translators added the “[other]” words in the passage when it is not in the Greek text. Sometimes I even showed them the passage in the WBTS’ own book, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures to prove the bracketed words were added without explanation in the NWT. Most of them were unaware that it was even done that way until I told them. Nonetheless, most argued that if the translators put them there they must have had good reason. Yes, from their viewpoint they did have good reason: to negate the impact of the passage asserting the deity of Jesus Christ.
Now, it is interesting to note that in the newer NWT 2013 revision the translators left the unwarranted words “other” in those five places in the text where they should not be, but quietly removed the brackets! In other words, the revision editors (whoever they were) decided that leaving the brackets on the words was an inadvertent admission that the words do not appear in the Greek text and should not be there. So, rather than having to explain why the brackets were there, they just removed them. Maybe they hoped no one would notice.
Anyway, the clear teaching of the passage, when translated as it is in Greek, is that everything that exists was created by and for Jesus, was reconciled by Jesus, and is sustained by Jesus Christ, who is the fullness of God (vs. 19; also see Colossians 2:9)!
TITUS 2:13 – Another key verse the NWT translators had to dissemble to fit their theology is Titus 2:13. The NASB, in agreement with nearly all other versions, says: “Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.” The verse, as properly translated, calls Christ Jesus “our great God and Savior.”
In the 1984 NWT it was awkwardly rendered: “While we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus.” The WBTS actually added two words to the text not found in the Greek: “of [the].” They did put [the] in brackets to acknowledge its absence in the Greek but did not do so for the word “of.” They also eliminated the word “our” from before “great God” and put “of us” at the end of the sentence. Their purpose evidently was to distinguish “the great God” from “[the] Savior of us” since in WBTS theology Jesus cannot be God.
The 2013 version of the NWT has the verse like this: “while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ.” Notice that they removed entirely “[the]” in the last clause and removed “us” at the end of the sentence. Nonetheless, they kept and moved the word “of” from before “us” to before “our Savior” even though “of” is not even in the Greek text at this place. They also moved the word “our,” not before “great God and Savior,” as in the NASB and all other standard translations, but before “Savior, Jesus Christ.” The effect of this change is significant theologically. By surreptitiously locating the word “our” before “Savior, Jesus Christ” instead of where it belongs, before “great God,” the WBTS is still clearly trying to distinguish “God” from, “Savior, Jesus Christ.”
The phrase should correctly read as the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) has it: “while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” In other words, Jesus Christ Himself is “our great God and Savior!”
REVELATION 3:14b – One other key verse we need to examine in the NWT is Revelation 3:14b. The NASB translates that phrase like this: “The Amen (i.e.: the risen Jesus), the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God.” Both the 1984 and 2013 NWT editions render the phrase as, “the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.” The WBTS maintains that the verse’s reference to Jesus as “the beginning of the creation” is proof that Jesus (Michael) was the first created being by Jehovah in the preexistent era.
This WBTS interpretation of this phrase, however, misses the main point the author was trying to get across to his readers (the church at Laodicea and indirectly to us). The word rendered “beginning” in the NWT (and traditionally in many other standard English translations: egs: KJV; NKJV; NASB; RSV; NSRV) is the Greek word arche. That term can also be translated accurately as: “source” (New English Bible); “ruler” (New International Version); Originator (HCSB); or “origin” (Good News Bible). These renderings thus fully confirm the orthodox view of Christ’s divinity. The great Greek scholar A.T. Robertson commented on this phrase saying, “Not the first of creatures as the Arians held and Unitarians (and Jehovah’s Witnesses) do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works” (Archibald Thomas Robinson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1933, p. 321 – emphasis added).
The point of the verse is that Jesus was creation’s “beginning,” not as the first created thing in time, but as its very source or origin of being (i.e. God). As I like to put it, “Jesus was the BANG in the Big Bang!”
The other problem with the WBTS’ interpretation of this verse concerns their translation of the last clause tou Theou as “by God.” No other standard translation has that phrase like that. The genitive grammatical usage requires “of God.” This further suggests that Christ is the prime source or origin of God’s creation, not that He Himself was created “by God.”
LORD OR JEHOVAH? – Finally we come to the most grievous and presumptuous distortion found in both the 1984 and 2013 editions of the NWT New Testament. The WBTS translators inexplicably translate the common Greek words for Lord (kurios) and God (Theos) as “Jehovah” 237 times in their NWT “Christian Greek Scriptures.” This unwarranted use of the Old Testament name of God (as transliterated by the WBTS) is made, however, only when kurios is used in the context of a reference to God in a generic sense, or when used in a passage that quotes from the Old Testament. Never is kurios translated as “Jehovah” in the nearly 400 times in the New Testament when it is applied as a title to Jesus Christ. There is simply no justifiable textual or linguistic bases for using “Jehovah” or for making that distinction. The word kurios should always be accurately translated, according to context, as “Lord” or “Master,” and the word Theos always translated as “God.” Neither Greek word can ever be translated legitimately as “Jehovah.”
The New Testament writers, following Jewish tradition and the 3rd Century BC Greek Septuagint’s translation of the Old Testament, understood the term kurios (Lord), in most cases, to be a reference to deity (Yahweh) in the fullest sense. Thus, when New Testament writers called Jesus kurios (Lord or Master), they were directly identifying Him with the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh or Jehovah).
It is obvious that the NWT’s illegitimate use of “Jehovah” to translate kurios (Lord) or Theos (God) 237 times in generic reference to God, but never as a title of Jesus, is to reinforce the distinction between God and Jesus in the minds of uninformed Jehovah’s Witnesses.
CONCLUSION
In 2013 the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, also known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, released a revised edition of its English Bible called The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. This was the first revision of that Bible version since 1984. The WBTS stated in the foreword to the new edition that they had made the revisions in order to make the Bible more readable for a new generation. As language and word meanings have changed over the years, the WBTS indicated that some of the words and phrases used in earlier NWT editions needed updating. That rationale is true for any Bible translation version and is a common practice by all Bible publishers. Even the revered King James Version has undergone several updates over the years.
The newest version of NWT does make many minor changes in the use of some words and phrases. That being said, however, it is clearly apparent that it does not correct the many blatantly biased and erroneous translations of a number of key scriptural passages that were in the 1984 and preceding NWT editions. As we have shown, the NWT is seriously biased in its renderings of specific verses and passages to reflect the unitarian and Arianist doctrinal positions of the WBTS, especially in regards to the preexistent nature of Jesus Christ. The new edition not only fails to correct those erroneous renderings but in some instances makes those mistranslations even more obscure to the unwary reader. Thus our bottom-line conclusion is that the 2013 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, as was also seen in previous editions, is still one of the most biased, distorted, and deceptive Bible versions ever published. The NWT is an unreliable and unscholarly corruption of God’s Word. It should be avoided, condemned, and exposed by all Bible loving and believing Christians. So, is the 2013 revised Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible any better than the old one? The short answer: NO!
© 2015 Tal Davis
I am not a JW. Never have been…never will be. What you fail to realize, is that there are many other genuine believers around the globe who reject the Nicean/Constantinian.-Constantinopolitan/ Theodosius 1 sophistry, with pagan underpinnings, known as the ‘trinity’. Likewise they reject the idea of a preexistent celestial being coming from Heaven to an earthly virgin to to acquire a human body in order to fulfill the Law, His Father’s Will and Work resulting in the salvation of all (I Tim. 4:10 , John 3:16, I Tim. 2:4, I John 2:2 & 4:10, and many other verses.) They/we do not believe, for it is not taught in Scripture, that Jesus Christ is Absolute Deity. Read, every word that Jesus uttered rejecting that ‘thought’ or ‘doctrine’. Then read, every word of the Apostolic writings/letters re-affirming what Jesus said of Himself and His relationship with His Father. How did Peter and Paul salute the brethren in their letters…? “Blessed be THE GOD AND FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Jesus said to tell his brothers after His resurrection… “tell them I ascend to MY GOD AND your God…to MY FATHER AND your FATHER”. He is “the firstborn among many brethren. He is also to have the preeminence…”And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” Look up “preeminence”.
I was converted, genuinely, by grace through the attendant GIFT of faith in 1971 at 20 years of age. I spent 45 years in the institutionalized COUNTERFEIT that calls itself ‘christianity’ and ‘christendom’. You apparently are far more deeply imbued with the Roman Cult’s dogmas and their pagan underpinnings than you realize. You are in NO place to judge the theology of anyone, yours being as skewed and Roman and pagan as it appears, from what you’ve written here. The one place we may find agreement is that the JW’s were wrong to accomodate their revisions to their ‘theology’. It is, despite the whinings of “churchianity’, Inc., a much better translation than that crap being sold in ‘christian’ bookstores.
Positive comments about the New World Translation from non-Witness scholars
• In a letter dated December 8, 1950, noted Bible translator and scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed wrote regarding the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures: “I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”
Edgar J. Goodspeed
• Professor Allen Wikgren of the University of Chicago cited the New World Translation as an example of a modern speech version that rather than being derived from other translations, often has “independent readings of merit.”—The Interpreter’s Bible, Volume I, page 99.
• Commenting on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, British Bible critic Alexander Thomson wrote: “The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.”—The Differentiator, April 1952, page 52.
• Despite noting what he felt were a few unusual renderings, author Charles Francis Potter said: “The anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts, both Greek and Hebrew, with scholarly ability and acumen.”—The Faiths Men Live By, page 300.
• Although he felt that the New World Translation had both peculiarities and excellences, Robert M. McCoy concluded his review of it by stating: “The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement [Jehovah’s Witnesses] of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, page 31.
• Professor S. MacLean Gilmour, while not agreeing with some renderings in the New World Translation, still acknowledged that its translators “possessed an unusual competence in Greek.”—Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, page 26.
• In his review of the New World Translation that forms part of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, Associate Professor Thomas N. Winter wrote: “The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.”—The Classical Journal, April-May 1974, page 376.
• Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: “In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible.”
• Based on his analysis of nine major English translations, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies, wrote: “The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.” Although the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias on the part of its translators, BeDuhn stated: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”—Truth in Translation, pages 163, 165.
Flee false ‘christianity’.
Try to lay aside your biases, and spend some time on http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com and http://www.concordant.org. God does indeed give grace to the humble.
Kind regards.
You said you read my piece on the Revised NWT. You quoted several 20th century scholars who seemed to endorse the NWT (most from the 1950s and 60s when the NWT was first released). I have been studying JWs for more than 40 years and have consulted with top Hebrew and Greek scholars. I have not met or read a single credible Bible translator who will agree with the renderings of the NWT, especially as it regards those verses affirming the deity of Christ. If you read my article on the revised NWT you should have seen my discussions of some of the passages where the Watchtower Society distorted their translation in order to obscure the deity of Christ. If you did not read it thoroughly, go here: http://www.marketfaith.org/2015/08/the-2013-revised-jehovahs-witnesses-bible/ .
Also go to these links to see what is available on those and other subjects: The Christian Worldview and Non-Christian Worldviews.
Given your comments, I am curious as to your religious identification. Are you affiliated with any of these non-trinitarian movements? Oneness Pentecostalism, Unitarian-Universalism, The Way International (or one of its offshoots), or do you regard yourself simply as a skeptic?
—Tal Davis
Tal@marketfaith.org
Tal,
Thank you for sharing your opinions with me, as I have with you. Since a very clear and dramatic conversion (quickening) at age 20, I spent 45 years among the nauseatingly numerous protestant/evangelical sects; many years among Roman Catholics of both liberal and traditionalist stripe, and several years among the Russian Orthodox (and a house church or two). Some would say that that is a demonstration of instability… church-shopping, itching ears, etc. My response is that after my becoming a ‘new creation’ in Christ, I stepped out my door into Christendom’s labyrinth… It’s ‘sampling directory’ is found in the Yellow Pages under “Churches”. To be more clear, it is the very ‘nature of the beast’, ‘christendom’ ,that requires a thorough inquiry and seeking of what is and isn’t authentic. That ‘beast’ is a plethora of competing, denominated franchise all vying for ‘true-churchism’ as their banner. All in disagreement and dis-fellowshipped one from the other. Any you think that in such a miasma you can decide who is and who isn’t worthy or capable of the bestowal of your beloved ‘scholarliness’ laurel.
Tal, it appears from what you’ve written, that you have breathed in, deeply, the air of such a wasteland. Did the One,True and Living God go scholar-hunting when he picked the men who penned the inspired Scriptures of the Old Testament and the 4 narratives and apostolic letters and accounts of the Greek Scriptures? Go stand in the middle of any ‘christian’ Bookstore, turn around 360 degrees, and behold what lies before you. A cornucopia… a buffet of subjective thought, opinion and ‘scholarship’ to satisfy a multitude of biases and to reinforce the delusion that is ‘christendom’.
It is sad, and I know from very long experience, that until one recognizes that they are ‘walled in’, they will continue to make choices based solely on what is inside those walls. The very word ekklesia means “out-called’. The ‘churches’ and ‘state’ have long shared the same adulterous bed (speaking spiritually; Scripturally) for very many centuries…very many. The alleged councils were, many of them, emperor mandated and overseen gatherings of power-tempted ‘Bishops (many of whom were violent and either speculatively or utterly heretical)… as were a number of the alleged ‘fathers’. The wolves had already entered in while the Apostles yet ministered to the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision. They (the Apostles) openly lament this in their letters.
If one is forced to make their own decisions in a false frame-of-reference, then they are not free, because the only decisions they can make are already made for them by the ‘lords’ of a false ‘christendom’, constantly overflowing with conflicting, book-selling apologetics and sophistries.
If you seek salvation in subjective, walled-in choices and alleged ‘scholars’ and translators while enjoying the false consolation of the status quo… those are your choices… but not really. They are theirs. I believe you are sincere. But I believe you are infected with ‘dogmas’ and ‘traditions’ that have no basis in Truth…reality. I have been on both (actually, many :>) sides. This that I share with you is the ‘scholarship’ of GOD-given experience and perserverance. Long, painful… at times agonizing… and very humbling. But fruit-yielding. (Phil. 1:29). The Alexandrian errors, Greek and Gnostic, and yes pagan philosophies, and praxis (Clerical class esoterica vs. peasantry), that became the toxicity of the ‘air’ of ‘christendom’… woven in ever so patiently and subtly, are the afterbirth of a failed “Reformation” that many today still chew and swallow and make a living at to this very day.
You are only demonstrating, redundantly, that you will see only through your filtering, subjective take on things theological and linguistcal. None of us are capable of perfect objectivity when we have things of eternal import set before us. I used to believe much of what you apparently believe. God’s faithfulness in the work He began in me long ago, has taught me through the ‘labyrinth’ experience of 4.5 decades, what IS NOT as well as WHAT IS when it comes to Truth and utter dependence on Him and the perfect and finished Work of His Son, His Only-begotten.
His Truth, openly and humanly declared in Christ Jesus can be found readily through the prayers of a broken heart, and the lips of those lowly regarded by the world and its false systems, both political and ‘religious’.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a very confused and confusing cult. I don’t ‘pan for gold’ among the multitudes and status quo of a nominal-at-best ‘christianity’… but among those who’ve been marginalized, murdered and calumniated over the millennia by the travelers on the road that is a wide and easy path to destruction. God’s ways are strange to us many times… I wouldn’t put it past Him, just to spite the idol of a false ‘churchianity’…. to bring forth a very reliable, not perfect… (no publisher or translator can claim that) translation from a Balaam’s ass known as JW’s to faithfully transmit (2 Tim. 2:15) His word of truth for the sake of those who are converted and have become as little children, through suffering accompanied by an always super-abundant grace.
In Christ Jesus,
Philip
PS> I have found the resources at http://www.concordant.org quite helpful, through God’s loving providences. Your first instinct, more than likely, will be to recoil, label and castigate. Try to refrain from that, and see if a layer or two of your onion doesn’t get peeled. I have
Just a couple of points on your main article (I couldn’t find a reply link sorry).
Sentences like “all credible scholars agree…” are meaningless and totally subjective. If a scholar disagrees with the consensus, you’ll simply not count him among “credible” scholars. Apart from the fact that the bible doesn’t place any special value on the opinion of “scholars” (1 Cor 1:26-31; Acts 4:13) It can nevertheless be demonstrated that amongst those who call themselves scholars are the ones whom Philip quoted in his reply to you.
Similarly, saying “All the scholars I’ve spoken to…disagree with the NWT” is also meaningless. Evidently you haven’t spoke to scholars who agree with Jehovah’s Witnesses, or refuse to acknowledge them as scholars.
The two tactics mentioned above, as well as appeals to authority in general, are the mainstays of propaganda.
If you are going to take one position over another, it should be because of what is said, not who is saying it.
In Jason Debuhn’s book (no doubt not a scholarly work in your expert opinion) he doesn’t just say ‘they’re wrong” he explains why he thinks so. He explains his understanding of Greek and shows examples of other non-controversial verses where other translators have been happy to use he very principles of translation that they argue against in the controversial verses.
Questioning his credentials becomes irrelevant after the argument is put forward. If he his wrong, detractors should say why. They should explain where his logic is in error or why his examples don’t apply to the verse in question.
You say that the context of John 1:1 is obvious. I agree. But I disagree with what you think it is. You cannot be ‘with’ a person and also ‘be’ that person. This is a universal truth. The Word is not described as being with “the father”, but with “God” so clearly the context itself cannot be used to justify the “was God” translation. If “was God” is correct (vs “a god” or “godlike/divine”) hen it must be so because of necessity – an undeniable principle of Greek grammar. If that is the case, then we would expect to see the definite form every time we see similar construction. We don’t (John 4:24, 6:20 etc). Evidently, context can play it’s part.
Something people overlook is that even the expression “the Word was God” would not necessarily have to be taken literally. In Exodus 4:16 the Hebrew text allows for the literal translation “I have made you (Moses) God to pharaoh.” Most translations say “as God” but the point is clear. Moses became as God to Pharoah because Moses acted as God’s spokesman.
So the argument that the NWT has changed the verse to suit its doctrinal position is moot.
Your example in Titus is surprising because there are many trinitarian Bible translations that do not render it in the way you say it should be.
At 2 Thes 2:12, the Greek form is the sarne as Titus 2:13. Yet most translations add “the” before “Lord”, showing that they understand “God” and “Lord” to be distinct here. Why the inconsistency in the translations that favour translating Titus as you would prefer?
Finally, to your criticism of the use of “Jehovah” in the Greek scriptures of the NWT. If you believe Jehovah and Jesus are one and the same, then I’m not sure why you take such offence at the translation – especially since many of the instances are where the NT author quotes OT passages where “Jehovah” is used.
Further, your disgust at our “presumptuousness”. seems hypocritical give the nearly 7000 times your translators decided to swap out ‘Jehovah” where you DEFINITELY know it occurs.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are of the belief that Jehovah was very likely used by Jesus disciples. Jesus condemned people for placing tradition ahead of God’s will. He stated several times he had made God’s name known. It is hard to imagine therefore that the disciples of Jesus himself would be peer-pressured into being silent about God’s name.
So whereas there is good motive and a rationale for ‘presuming’ that “Jehovah” was likely used in the original copies, the only motive for removing “Jehovah” from the English translations of the Bible are based on the traditions of men who clearly were not showing a proper respect for God’s wishes.
Damian,
Thank you for your comments. I will try address them concisely as each could fill volumes. To start with, when I talk about “credible scholars” I mean people who have demonstrated they are thoroughly able to translate one of more of the Bible’s original languages of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. They have, in most instances, learned the languages in years of university study and have spent decades refining their skills. Some of the notable individuals, past and present, in such a list include F.F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, N. T. Wright, W. D. Mounce, A. T. Robertson, F. W. Gingrich, Julius R. Mantey (who was once misquoted by the Watchtower Society to say he agreed with their New World Translation (NWT)- he demanded a retraction), and many others. These were and are highly respected scholars among all branches of New Testament researchers. They all have rejected the NWT.
I am not familiar with Jason Debuhn. Did you mean Jason Deduhn at Northern Arizona University? I will have to read more about him and his ideas.
As for Titus 2:13, it is true there is some disagreement among scholars as to the precise meaning. However, I draw your attention to an excellent paper on that verse published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society by Robert Bowman. It was written in response to another scholar’s view that the verse does not call Jesus God: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.732.1903&rep=rep1&type=pdf . Bowman’s conclusion is: “The cumulative or converging effect of these observations is to show that we should indeed understand Titus 2:13 to refer to Jesus Christ as ‘our great God and Savior.’”
You also asked about the “nearly 7000 times your translators decided to swap out ‘Jehovah’ where you DEFINITELY know it occurs.” I am not sure which translators are mine, but I assume you are referring to the tradition in most English Bibles of using the word LORD in those places where the Hebrew name for God, YHWH, appears. This four letter term is called the Tetragrammaton which was revealed to Moses as God’s name. It was regarded as so sacred by the Hebrews that they would not say it out of fear of mispronouncing it. For that reason when the Scriptures were read aloud YHWH was substituted with the Hebrew word for Lord (Adonai). Thus, when the Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek (The Septuagint) they used the Greek word for Lord (kurios) were the Tetragrammaton appeared.
Most English Bibles continue that tradition using LORD (all caps) where YHWH is found in the text (Hebrew had no vowels). A few, however, do transliterate it as Yahweh. The old American Standard Version only used Jehovah. The KJV has it in four places. Jehovah is actually a poor transliteration using the vowels from adonai. Jehovah never appears in any Hebrew texts of the Bible. That being said, it could certainly be argued that the use of LORD is unnecessary and that Yahweh should be used to transliterate YHWH in English (but never Jehovah).
The biggest problem with the NWT’s use of Jehovah is that 237 times in the New Testament where the Greek word Lord (kurios) appears they substitute the name Jehovah. However, the nearly 400 times Lord (kurios) is used in reference to Jesus it is translated correctly as Lord or Master. There is simply no legitimate reason to change the Greek word kurios to Jehovah 237 times when it does not appear in any known ancient New Testament texts. That is indeed presumptuous, inconsistent, and is clearly done to disguise the deity of Christ when He is called Lord (kurios) nearly 400 times.
Thank you again for your comments.
Tal Davis