metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Nor do I believe he was the last. IMO, we all have a bit of God in us that feeds our conscience if we tap into it, and I do believe that's the Holy Spirit.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where does the NWT Bible Falsify?
- Thread starter tigger2
- Start date
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Jesus fulfilled the law for us. That he did that was an act of grace. But it was a lifetime of law-abiding behavior that he performed.
You really make me smile sometimes.....
What else did Jesus say..?
John 17:22...
"22 The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;" (NASB)
John 14:28...
"28 You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (NASB)
John 17:3.....
"3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (NASB)
Your scriptural knowledge is very selective IMO.
So who are your teachers? Who are you parroting?
tigger2
Active Member
Here is extremely anti-JW Robert Bowman’s evaluation of one of the most respected NT Greek Bible scholars and Bible translators of modern times. That is Edgar J. Goodspeed, the translator of the New Testament portion of An American Translation (AT).
On p. 126 of his Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses Bowman states:
“Edgar J. Goodspeed was without question one of America’s finest Greek scholars.” [Bowman also notes that Goodspeed was a trinitarian Christian - p. 129.]
I think it would be fair to say, then, that Bowman would acknowledge the translations by famed trinitarian Goodspeed in his An American Translation (AT) as honest, scholarly translations.
So, when Bowman criticizes the NWT's use of the NT Greek en how does Goodspeed translate it?
"In 1 John 5:20 the NWT reads in part: “And we are in union with [en] the true one, by means of [en] his Son Jesus Christ.” Reading this translation one would never suspect that “in union with” and “by means of” translate the same simple Greek preposition. ....
Again in Colossians 2:6-12 “in him” and “in whom” (en auto, en ho) becomes “in union with him” (v. 6), “in him” (vv. 7, 9), “by means of him” (v. 10), and “by relationship with him” (vv. 11, 12). These variations serve no useful purpose, undermine the unity of the passage, and obscure the passage ...." - p. 69.
So how does Goodspeed translate the two uses of en at 1 John 5:20 (where the NWT has “in union with” and “by means of”)?
“and we are in union with [en] him who is true, through [en] his Son, Jesus Christ.” - AT (Goodspeed)
And yet, according to Bowman himself, trinitarian Goodspeed is a superb scholar worthy of our trust.
How is it, then, that the NWT is to be condemned by Bowman for its translation which is essentially the same as Goodspeed’s??
And again in Col. 2:6-12 how does Goodspeed render the preposition en?
Where the NWT translates en as “in union with him” (v. 6), Goodspeed has “in vital union with him”!
And where the NWT has “in him” (verses 7, 9), Goodspeed has “in him”!
And where the NWT has “by means of him” (v. 10), Goodspeed has “in union with him”!
And where the NWT has "By relationship with him" (v.11), Goodspeed has "Through your relation to him"!
And where the NWT has “by relationship with him” (v. 12), Goodspeed has “with him”!
So, again, how is it that the NWT is to be condemned for its dishonesty, bias, etc. when the much acclaimed, trinitarian, Bowman-praised Dr. Goodspeed renders it virtually the same?
On p. 126 of his Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses Bowman states:
“Edgar J. Goodspeed was without question one of America’s finest Greek scholars.” [Bowman also notes that Goodspeed was a trinitarian Christian - p. 129.]
I think it would be fair to say, then, that Bowman would acknowledge the translations by famed trinitarian Goodspeed in his An American Translation (AT) as honest, scholarly translations.
So, when Bowman criticizes the NWT's use of the NT Greek en how does Goodspeed translate it?
"In 1 John 5:20 the NWT reads in part: “And we are in union with [en] the true one, by means of [en] his Son Jesus Christ.” Reading this translation one would never suspect that “in union with” and “by means of” translate the same simple Greek preposition. ....
Again in Colossians 2:6-12 “in him” and “in whom” (en auto, en ho) becomes “in union with him” (v. 6), “in him” (vv. 7, 9), “by means of him” (v. 10), and “by relationship with him” (vv. 11, 12). These variations serve no useful purpose, undermine the unity of the passage, and obscure the passage ...." - p. 69.
So how does Goodspeed translate the two uses of en at 1 John 5:20 (where the NWT has “in union with” and “by means of”)?
“and we are in union with [en] him who is true, through [en] his Son, Jesus Christ.” - AT (Goodspeed)
And yet, according to Bowman himself, trinitarian Goodspeed is a superb scholar worthy of our trust.
How is it, then, that the NWT is to be condemned by Bowman for its translation which is essentially the same as Goodspeed’s??
And again in Col. 2:6-12 how does Goodspeed render the preposition en?
Where the NWT translates en as “in union with him” (v. 6), Goodspeed has “in vital union with him”!
And where the NWT has “in him” (verses 7, 9), Goodspeed has “in him”!
And where the NWT has “by means of him” (v. 10), Goodspeed has “in union with him”!
And where the NWT has "By relationship with him" (v.11), Goodspeed has "Through your relation to him"!
And where the NWT has “by relationship with him” (v. 12), Goodspeed has “with him”!
So, again, how is it that the NWT is to be condemned for its dishonesty, bias, etc. when the much acclaimed, trinitarian, Bowman-praised Dr. Goodspeed renders it virtually the same?
tigger2
Active Member
ROM. 9:5 - “ ... Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” - KJV.
Bowman not only insists that the KJV has the only proper translation of this verse and that it proves that Jesus is definitely called God, but that the NWT “systematically abused the divine ... titles” by mistranslating it “so that Jesus is not called God at all”! - p. 71.
NWT: "Israelites .... to whom the forefathers belong and from whom the Christ [sprang] according to the flesh: God, who is over all, [be] blessed forever." Ro 9:4, 5.
This is the scripture that A Catholic Dictionary calls “the strongest statement of Christ’s divinity in [the writings of] St. Paul, and, indeed, in the N[ew] T[estament].”
The Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic) renders it, like the equally trinitarian KJV, in such a way as to make Christ appear to be God: “Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen.”
And the very trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, 1985, in a note for Ro. 9:5, calls it: “One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT, assuming the accuracy of the translation (see NIV text note).”
However, the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is forced to acknowledge that even IF such a trinitarian rendering of the Greek were accurate,
“Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as being of divine nature [see the study paper on ‘The Definite John 1:1’ (DEF)], for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a DOXOLOGY [praise] DIRECTED TO God.” - Vol. 2, p. 80, Zondervan, 1986.
Even the trinitarian United Bible Societies makes the same admission:
“In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him ‘God blessed for ever’.” And, “Nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ho christos [‘the Christ’] as theos [‘God’ or ‘god’].” - p. 522, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.
The UBS has therefore punctuated their NT Greek text in such a way as to show the separateness of Christ and God at Ro. 9:5.
The noted NT scholar and translator, William Barclay, although an admitted trinitarian, has translated Ro. 9:5 as "And from them [Israelites], on his human side, came the Anointed One of God. Blessed for ever be the God who is over all! Amen." - The Letter to the Romans, Rev. ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, The Westminster Press, 1975.
And A Catholic Dictionary admits the possibility that the scripture in question is really a doxology directed to God and not to Jesus: “There is no reason in grammar or in the context which forbids us to translate ‘God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.’” And this statement is from the very same trinitarian reference work that calls Ro. 9:5 “the strongest statement of Christ’s divinity” in the entire New Testament!! If this is the “strongest” such statement, where does that put the rest of the trinity “proof”?
Illustrating the high probability that the last part of Romans 9:5 is directed as a doxology to the Father, not to Jesus, are these translations of Ro. 9:5 found in trinitarian Bibles where the statement in question is a separate thought, a separate sentence which is not directed to Jesus:
The New American Bible (NAB), 1970 ed. - “Blessed forever be God who is over all! Amen.”
The New American Bible (NAB), 1991 ed. - “God who is over all be blessed forever, Amen.”
The New English Bible (NEB) - “May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!”
Revised English Bible (REB) - “May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!”
The Revised Standard Version (RSV) - “God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.”
- See p. 165, So Many Versions? (SMV), Zondervan, 1983.
New Life Version (NLV) - “May God be honored and thanked forever.”
Today’s English Version (TEV) - “May God, who rules over all, be praised forever! Amen.”
The Bible, A New Translation, (Mo) by Dr. James Moffatt - “(Blessed for evermore be the
God who is over all! Amen.)”
Easy-to-Read Version (ETRV) - “May God, who rules over all things, be praised forever”(f.n.)
An American Translation (AT) - “ - God who is over all be blessed for ever!”
Yes, even Dr. Goodspeed, the trinitarian scholar praised by Bowman himself, translates Ro. 9:5 in a non-trinitarian fashion in his An American Translation!
Not only can Ro. 9:5 be interpreted as having two different statements about two different subjects (1. Jesus came to earth as an Israelite, and, 2. Bless God who is over all.), but that is almost certainly the meaning intended by Paul (compare Ro. 15:5, 6; Ro. 16:27; 2 Cor. 1:3; Gal. 1:3-5; Eph. 1:3; 1 Tim. 1:16, 17).
Some trinitarians have, instead, run these two separate statements together in such a way as to give the interpretation that they both refer to the same subject: Jesus.
But notice how the highly respected trinitarian Bible, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) renders this verse:
[An Israelite] “according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.”
And just how is it that the Bowman-praised trinitarian translator Dr. Goodspeed (in basic agreement with many other trinitarian translators and respected scholars) renders Ro. 9:5 as:
“from them [Israelites] physically Christ came - God who is over all be blessed forever! Amen”
while “the NWT has systematically abused the divine names or titles”[2] (according to Bowman, p. 71) by rendering Ro. 9:5 as:
“from whom the Christ [sprang] according to the flesh: God, who is over all, [be] blessed forever. Amen.”
There is NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE! Ro. 9:5 is simply not necessarily a trinitarian statement! And Bowman is being incredibly hypocritical and dishonest by accusing the NWT of purposely distorting and mistranslating this scripture and abusing the divine titles!
Bowman not only insists that the KJV has the only proper translation of this verse and that it proves that Jesus is definitely called God, but that the NWT “systematically abused the divine ... titles” by mistranslating it “so that Jesus is not called God at all”! - p. 71.
NWT: "Israelites .... to whom the forefathers belong and from whom the Christ [sprang] according to the flesh: God, who is over all, [be] blessed forever." Ro 9:4, 5.
This is the scripture that A Catholic Dictionary calls “the strongest statement of Christ’s divinity in [the writings of] St. Paul, and, indeed, in the N[ew] T[estament].”
The Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic) renders it, like the equally trinitarian KJV, in such a way as to make Christ appear to be God: “Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen.”
And the very trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, 1985, in a note for Ro. 9:5, calls it: “One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT, assuming the accuracy of the translation (see NIV text note).”
However, the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is forced to acknowledge that even IF such a trinitarian rendering of the Greek were accurate,
“Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as being of divine nature [see the study paper on ‘The Definite John 1:1’ (DEF)], for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a DOXOLOGY [praise] DIRECTED TO God.” - Vol. 2, p. 80, Zondervan, 1986.
Even the trinitarian United Bible Societies makes the same admission:
“In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him ‘God blessed for ever’.” And, “Nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ho christos [‘the Christ’] as theos [‘God’ or ‘god’].” - p. 522, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.
The UBS has therefore punctuated their NT Greek text in such a way as to show the separateness of Christ and God at Ro. 9:5.
The noted NT scholar and translator, William Barclay, although an admitted trinitarian, has translated Ro. 9:5 as "And from them [Israelites], on his human side, came the Anointed One of God. Blessed for ever be the God who is over all! Amen." - The Letter to the Romans, Rev. ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, The Westminster Press, 1975.
And A Catholic Dictionary admits the possibility that the scripture in question is really a doxology directed to God and not to Jesus: “There is no reason in grammar or in the context which forbids us to translate ‘God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.’” And this statement is from the very same trinitarian reference work that calls Ro. 9:5 “the strongest statement of Christ’s divinity” in the entire New Testament!! If this is the “strongest” such statement, where does that put the rest of the trinity “proof”?
Illustrating the high probability that the last part of Romans 9:5 is directed as a doxology to the Father, not to Jesus, are these translations of Ro. 9:5 found in trinitarian Bibles where the statement in question is a separate thought, a separate sentence which is not directed to Jesus:
The New American Bible (NAB), 1970 ed. - “Blessed forever be God who is over all! Amen.”
The New American Bible (NAB), 1991 ed. - “God who is over all be blessed forever, Amen.”
The New English Bible (NEB) - “May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!”
Revised English Bible (REB) - “May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!”
The Revised Standard Version (RSV) - “God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.”
- See p. 165, So Many Versions? (SMV), Zondervan, 1983.
New Life Version (NLV) - “May God be honored and thanked forever.”
Today’s English Version (TEV) - “May God, who rules over all, be praised forever! Amen.”
The Bible, A New Translation, (Mo) by Dr. James Moffatt - “(Blessed for evermore be the
God who is over all! Amen.)”
Easy-to-Read Version (ETRV) - “May God, who rules over all things, be praised forever”(f.n.)
An American Translation (AT) - “ - God who is over all be blessed for ever!”
Yes, even Dr. Goodspeed, the trinitarian scholar praised by Bowman himself, translates Ro. 9:5 in a non-trinitarian fashion in his An American Translation!
Not only can Ro. 9:5 be interpreted as having two different statements about two different subjects (1. Jesus came to earth as an Israelite, and, 2. Bless God who is over all.), but that is almost certainly the meaning intended by Paul (compare Ro. 15:5, 6; Ro. 16:27; 2 Cor. 1:3; Gal. 1:3-5; Eph. 1:3; 1 Tim. 1:16, 17).
Some trinitarians have, instead, run these two separate statements together in such a way as to give the interpretation that they both refer to the same subject: Jesus.
But notice how the highly respected trinitarian Bible, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) renders this verse:
[An Israelite] “according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.”
And just how is it that the Bowman-praised trinitarian translator Dr. Goodspeed (in basic agreement with many other trinitarian translators and respected scholars) renders Ro. 9:5 as:
“from them [Israelites] physically Christ came - God who is over all be blessed forever! Amen”
while “the NWT has systematically abused the divine names or titles”[2] (according to Bowman, p. 71) by rendering Ro. 9:5 as:
“from whom the Christ [sprang] according to the flesh: God, who is over all, [be] blessed forever. Amen.”
There is NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE! Ro. 9:5 is simply not necessarily a trinitarian statement! And Bowman is being incredibly hypocritical and dishonest by accusing the NWT of purposely distorting and mistranslating this scripture and abusing the divine titles!
tigger2
Active Member
1 Jn 5:20 (Bowman again)- “his Son, Jesus Christ. This [outos] is the true [alethinos] God, and eternal life.” - KJV.
“We are in union with him who is true, through his son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” – AT (Goodspeed).
“his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.” - NWT.
Bowman complains about the interpretation of 1 John 5:20 by JW’s! Obviously the translation itself is little different from most trinitarian translations.
Some trinitarians, like Bowman, actually insist that the word “this” (outos) here refers to Jesus. In other words, “[Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.” For example, Bowman in his Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John states that Jesus is called
“‘the true God and eternal life’ ... indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament.” - p. 41, Baker Book House, 1991 printing.
I understand why trinitarians are so desperate in their search for scriptural “evidence” that they have to make it up, but this is incredibly poor!
It is obvious that grammatically the word “this” (outos) could be referring to either the Father or Jesus in this particular scripture (see the footnote for 1 John 5:20 in the very trinitarian NIV Study Bible and the comments on 1 Jn 5:20 by the staunchly trinitarian scholar A. T. Robertson in his Word Pictures, Vol. VI, p. 245.). But the fact that the true God (or “the true One”) has just been identified as the Father of Jesus (1 Jn 5:20, TEV and GNB) makes it highly probable that “this is the true God” refers to the Father, not Jesus.
The noted trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up his 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows:
“Although it is certainly possible that outos refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to ‘the true one,’ God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter.” - p. 253, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.
Notice how this trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the true God here. He even tells us (and cites examples in his footnotes) that New Testament grammarians and commentators (most of them trinitarian, of course) agree!
So this single “proof” that the “true God” is a title for anyone other than the Father alone is not proof at all. The grammar alone merely makes it a possibility. The immediate context makes it highly improbable since (as in all other uses of the term) the true God (or the true one) was just identified as the Father (“We are in the one who is true as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and this is eternal life.” - NJB; and “We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life.” - TEV.).
So the immediate context makes it probable that the true God is the Father in this scripture also. If we include the context of all the uses of the ‘true God’ in the NT, it is certain that He is the Father (whose personal name is Jehovah - Jer. 10:10, ASV; Ps. 83:18, KJV; Ex. 3:15, NEB). A quick glance at 1 Thess. 1:9 and 10, for example makes it very clear that “the true God” is the Father.
To clinch John’s intended meaning at 1 John 5:20, let’s look at his only other use of the term “the true God”: John 17:1, 3, where, again (as in 1 Jn 5:20), he mentions Father, Son, and eternal life.
At John 17:1, 3 Jesus prays to the Father: “Father, .... this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” - New International Version (NIV). Here the Father alone is not only very clearly identified as the only true [alethinos] God, but Jesus Christ is again pointedly and specifically excluded from that identification (“and Jesus Christ whom you [the only true God] have sent”)!
Notice how this trinitarian Bible has rendered John 17:1, 3 - “Father,....This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” - New English Bible (NEB).
Once again we find that even many trinitarian scholars agree with the JW interpretation. So just how is it that the NWT has “abused the divine name or titles” by translating 1 John 5:20 essentially as trinitarian Bibles do OR by interpreting it as many, if not most, trinitarian scholars also do? Bowman is knowingly accusing the JWs falsely!
“We are in union with him who is true, through his son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” – AT (Goodspeed).
“his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.” - NWT.
Bowman complains about the interpretation of 1 John 5:20 by JW’s! Obviously the translation itself is little different from most trinitarian translations.
Some trinitarians, like Bowman, actually insist that the word “this” (outos) here refers to Jesus. In other words, “[Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.” For example, Bowman in his Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John states that Jesus is called
“‘the true God and eternal life’ ... indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament.” - p. 41, Baker Book House, 1991 printing.
I understand why trinitarians are so desperate in their search for scriptural “evidence” that they have to make it up, but this is incredibly poor!
It is obvious that grammatically the word “this” (outos) could be referring to either the Father or Jesus in this particular scripture (see the footnote for 1 John 5:20 in the very trinitarian NIV Study Bible and the comments on 1 Jn 5:20 by the staunchly trinitarian scholar A. T. Robertson in his Word Pictures, Vol. VI, p. 245.). But the fact that the true God (or “the true One”) has just been identified as the Father of Jesus (1 Jn 5:20, TEV and GNB) makes it highly probable that “this is the true God” refers to the Father, not Jesus.
The noted trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up his 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows:
“Although it is certainly possible that outos refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to ‘the true one,’ God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter.” - p. 253, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.
Notice how this trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the true God here. He even tells us (and cites examples in his footnotes) that New Testament grammarians and commentators (most of them trinitarian, of course) agree!
So this single “proof” that the “true God” is a title for anyone other than the Father alone is not proof at all. The grammar alone merely makes it a possibility. The immediate context makes it highly improbable since (as in all other uses of the term) the true God (or the true one) was just identified as the Father (“We are in the one who is true as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and this is eternal life.” - NJB; and “We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life.” - TEV.).
So the immediate context makes it probable that the true God is the Father in this scripture also. If we include the context of all the uses of the ‘true God’ in the NT, it is certain that He is the Father (whose personal name is Jehovah - Jer. 10:10, ASV; Ps. 83:18, KJV; Ex. 3:15, NEB). A quick glance at 1 Thess. 1:9 and 10, for example makes it very clear that “the true God” is the Father.
To clinch John’s intended meaning at 1 John 5:20, let’s look at his only other use of the term “the true God”: John 17:1, 3, where, again (as in 1 Jn 5:20), he mentions Father, Son, and eternal life.
At John 17:1, 3 Jesus prays to the Father: “Father, .... this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” - New International Version (NIV). Here the Father alone is not only very clearly identified as the only true [alethinos] God, but Jesus Christ is again pointedly and specifically excluded from that identification (“and Jesus Christ whom you [the only true God] have sent”)!
Notice how this trinitarian Bible has rendered John 17:1, 3 - “Father,....This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” - New English Bible (NEB).
Once again we find that even many trinitarian scholars agree with the JW interpretation. So just how is it that the NWT has “abused the divine name or titles” by translating 1 John 5:20 essentially as trinitarian Bibles do OR by interpreting it as many, if not most, trinitarian scholars also do? Bowman is knowingly accusing the JWs falsely!
Moz
Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
HI.
Falsify. That is a strong accusation. Their is no doubt that translation is a fluid science and by it's very nature can throw up disparite meanings and interpretations but to intentionally falsify...... well that's too far.
This whole argument it seems to me is doctrinal and not linguistic.
The JW bible suites me fine as a non-trinitarian. Although it was the KJV that showed me the falsehood of that particular blasphemy.
I like that God's name is liberally used through out both books and have not found anywhere where it was inserted into the Greek scriptures that does anything but clarify the text. That whole Lord, LORD. lord thing is tiresome.
If i was alive at the time and Paul, for example, quoted a scripture i would look it up to see what the scripture actually said and if the tetragramaton was their i would transpose it in my head anyway. That's what i do with the KJV now.
Cross referencing often shows that the Father is being implied and not the son.
I like that it's cheap and easy to get.
I have never found anything that was unique to them that they have imposed on scripture, except maybe the 144000 although the two classes idea is ancient and they don't use translation issues to shoehorn that one. I guess they don't have to change some things. Every contention seems to be ancient and just transposed onto the witnesses, the arch heritics. But nothing new.
Neutral scholars on a whole, it seems, have no major problems with the scholarship.
Issues of style and feel come up with any translation and ALL bible versions have their issues.
So basically i think that if doctrinally you are non-trinitarian then the NWT is as good as any and better than most.
Peace.
Falsify. That is a strong accusation. Their is no doubt that translation is a fluid science and by it's very nature can throw up disparite meanings and interpretations but to intentionally falsify...... well that's too far.
This whole argument it seems to me is doctrinal and not linguistic.
The JW bible suites me fine as a non-trinitarian. Although it was the KJV that showed me the falsehood of that particular blasphemy.
I like that God's name is liberally used through out both books and have not found anywhere where it was inserted into the Greek scriptures that does anything but clarify the text. That whole Lord, LORD. lord thing is tiresome.
If i was alive at the time and Paul, for example, quoted a scripture i would look it up to see what the scripture actually said and if the tetragramaton was their i would transpose it in my head anyway. That's what i do with the KJV now.
Cross referencing often shows that the Father is being implied and not the son.
I like that it's cheap and easy to get.
I have never found anything that was unique to them that they have imposed on scripture, except maybe the 144000 although the two classes idea is ancient and they don't use translation issues to shoehorn that one. I guess they don't have to change some things. Every contention seems to be ancient and just transposed onto the witnesses, the arch heritics. But nothing new.
Neutral scholars on a whole, it seems, have no major problems with the scholarship.
Issues of style and feel come up with any translation and ALL bible versions have their issues.
So basically i think that if doctrinally you are non-trinitarian then the NWT is as good as any and better than most.
Peace.
tigger2
Active Member
I found criticisms of the NWT in a simple list comparing verses in ESV with those in NWT (but without commentary). I have listed them both and then added other Bible translations of the same verse.
PHIL. 2:5 (ESV) "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus," - ESV.
"Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus," - NWT.
"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus," - NASB.
"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus," - NRSV.
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:" - KJV.
"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:" - NIV.
I don't see that the NWT is in error in this scripture.
PHIL. 2:5 (ESV) "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus," - ESV.
"Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus," - NWT.
"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus," - NASB.
"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus," - NRSV.
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:" - KJV.
"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:" - NIV.
I don't see that the NWT is in error in this scripture.
tigger2
Active Member
Acts 2:17
".... I will pour out from [apo] the spirit of me on all flesh ...." - Nestle's Greek Text.
“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh," - ESV.
‘“And in the last days,” God says, “I will pour out some of my spirit on every sort of flesh," - NWT.
‘It will come to pass in the last days,’ God says, ‘that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh' - NAB.
Certainly in all other cases ekxeo ἐκχέω (“poured out”) refers to things. It would be unreasonable to insist that this is not the case in Acts 2 (and Titus 3:6) also. We can see that if we pour out something from something, it can mean one of two things. If we said we poured out from our bowl, for instance, we actually mean we poured from a container which contained some substance (thing). We may have poured some of it or all of it. But if we said we poured out from our wine onto your roast beef, it can only mean that we poured a portion of our wine (out of some container, of course) onto the meat. We would not say we poured from our wine if we had poured it all out.
What was it that God poured out from his Spirit? Well, what did the people receive when God poured out from his Spirit? Acts 2:4, 33 tells us they received Holy Spirit! If, then, God poured Holy Spirit from his Holy Spirit as described in Acts 2:17, 18, it means he poured out a portion of his Holy Spirit, as rendered in the trinitarian translations of the New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions), the New English Bible, and the Revised English Bible. (It is similar to our pouring out some wine from our wine.) So God poured out some of his spirit here, some of it there, but certainly he still kept an infinite amount.
Also see Numbers 11:17, 25.
As for the rendering "every sort of" for the word "all" in NT Greek:
Thayer's - "b. any and every, of every kind (A.V. often all manner of)" - Matt. 4:23; 5:11; 10:1; Acts 10:12; Ro. 7:8; Rev. 21:19.
The NWT is not 'falsifying' here.
".... I will pour out from [apo] the spirit of me on all flesh ...." - Nestle's Greek Text.
“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh," - ESV.
‘“And in the last days,” God says, “I will pour out some of my spirit on every sort of flesh," - NWT.
‘It will come to pass in the last days,’ God says, ‘that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh' - NAB.
Certainly in all other cases ekxeo ἐκχέω (“poured out”) refers to things. It would be unreasonable to insist that this is not the case in Acts 2 (and Titus 3:6) also. We can see that if we pour out something from something, it can mean one of two things. If we said we poured out from our bowl, for instance, we actually mean we poured from a container which contained some substance (thing). We may have poured some of it or all of it. But if we said we poured out from our wine onto your roast beef, it can only mean that we poured a portion of our wine (out of some container, of course) onto the meat. We would not say we poured from our wine if we had poured it all out.
What was it that God poured out from his Spirit? Well, what did the people receive when God poured out from his Spirit? Acts 2:4, 33 tells us they received Holy Spirit! If, then, God poured Holy Spirit from his Holy Spirit as described in Acts 2:17, 18, it means he poured out a portion of his Holy Spirit, as rendered in the trinitarian translations of the New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions), the New English Bible, and the Revised English Bible. (It is similar to our pouring out some wine from our wine.) So God poured out some of his spirit here, some of it there, but certainly he still kept an infinite amount.
Also see Numbers 11:17, 25.
As for the rendering "every sort of" for the word "all" in NT Greek:
Thayer's - "b. any and every, of every kind (A.V. often all manner of)" - Matt. 4:23; 5:11; 10:1; Acts 10:12; Ro. 7:8; Rev. 21:19.
The NWT is not 'falsifying' here.
tigger2
Active Member
Acts 5:29 - (Peitharchein) translated as "obey" in most Bibles. The NWT has been criticized for translating it as "obey as ruler."
“In answer Peter and the [other] apostles said: ‘We must obey God as ruler rather than men.’ ” - NWT. [Underlining added]
So, some anti-NWT critics claim that the NWT has falsely added “as ruler” to this scripture. But let’s examine what other authorities have to say about the word in question (peitharchein).
“We must (dei). Moral necessity left them no choice. They stood precisely where Peter and John were when before the Sanhedrin before (Acts 4:20). Obey (peitharchein). Old verb from peithomai and arche, to obey a ruler. Only by Luke and Paul in the N.T.” - Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 65, vol. 3.
Peitharchein: “to obey (a ruler or a superior)” p. 497, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Thayer, Baker Book House, 1977.
“The term ‘obey’ (peithomai) is used twice in [Acts 5] verses 36 and 37; it picks up the related verb ‘obey a leader’ (peitharchein) in verses 29 and 32.” - Note for Acts 5:37 in Sacra Pagina, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 100, the Liturgical Press, 1992.
(All emphasis above was added.)
The NWT is certainly not 'fasifying' here!
“In answer Peter and the [other] apostles said: ‘We must obey God as ruler rather than men.’ ” - NWT. [Underlining added]
So, some anti-NWT critics claim that the NWT has falsely added “as ruler” to this scripture. But let’s examine what other authorities have to say about the word in question (peitharchein).
“We must (dei). Moral necessity left them no choice. They stood precisely where Peter and John were when before the Sanhedrin before (Acts 4:20). Obey (peitharchein). Old verb from peithomai and arche, to obey a ruler. Only by Luke and Paul in the N.T.” - Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 65, vol. 3.
Peitharchein: “to obey (a ruler or a superior)” p. 497, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Thayer, Baker Book House, 1977.
“The term ‘obey’ (peithomai) is used twice in [Acts 5] verses 36 and 37; it picks up the related verb ‘obey a leader’ (peitharchein) in verses 29 and 32.” - Note for Acts 5:37 in Sacra Pagina, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 100, the Liturgical Press, 1992.
(All emphasis above was added.)
The NWT is certainly not 'fasifying' here!
Last edited:
tigger2
Active Member
"The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as 'a god.' Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both 'God' and 'god' in the very same sentence." https://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html
John uses the article ton ('the') with theon 9 times in his Gospel. Four times theon occurs without the article: Jn 1:18; 10:33; 20:17 (2). Of these three verses, the NWT translates theon at John 10:33 as 'a god' (as does the NEB)!!
At Jn 1:18 The NWT renders theon (θεόν) as "God" because of word order - http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/theon-rdbs-rule.html
"... in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both 'God' and 'god' in the very same sentence."
There are two different 'terms' here in John 1:18: theon and theos. The first is explained in the link to my studies above. The second 'term' (theos) is rendered as 'god' in the NWT and has no article with it. - http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/only-begotten-god-obgod.html
At Jn 20:17 the article is found before the first 'Father' in the series and, therefore, can apply to the other words in the series (including both uses of theon making them ton theon: 'God'). Another grammatical reason is that the 'prepositional' uses of theon makes the use or non-use of the article uncertain (either definite or indefinite):
+++ In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor A. T. Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with GENITIVES. We have seen that the substantive MAY still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament.
And, this highly respected trinitarian New Testament Greek authority also tells us:
“In examples like this [“prepositional” constructions] (cf. ... Mt. 27:54) ONLY THE CONTEXT CAN DECIDE [whether the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite]. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful.... [Please note that the example Robertson has given (Matt. 27:54) has the anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb as in Colwell’s Rule!] In Jo. 5:27 [‘son of man’] may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’” - p. 781. [Robertson says this in spite of the fact that John 5:27 also has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding its verb!! It’s “prepositional” (noun modified by a genitive noun in these cases) and, therefore, the use of the article is ambiguous!] - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, 1934.
+++ “The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43.” - Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 133, University of Chicago Press, 1961.
+++ “#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - H. W. Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges, p. 291.
This NWT critic's statement is false!
The NWT is certainly not falsifying here!
John uses the article ton ('the') with theon 9 times in his Gospel. Four times theon occurs without the article: Jn 1:18; 10:33; 20:17 (2). Of these three verses, the NWT translates theon at John 10:33 as 'a god' (as does the NEB)!!
At Jn 1:18 The NWT renders theon (θεόν) as "God" because of word order - http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/theon-rdbs-rule.html
"... in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both 'God' and 'god' in the very same sentence."
There are two different 'terms' here in John 1:18: theon and theos. The first is explained in the link to my studies above. The second 'term' (theos) is rendered as 'god' in the NWT and has no article with it. - http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/only-begotten-god-obgod.html
At Jn 20:17 the article is found before the first 'Father' in the series and, therefore, can apply to the other words in the series (including both uses of theon making them ton theon: 'God'). Another grammatical reason is that the 'prepositional' uses of theon makes the use or non-use of the article uncertain (either definite or indefinite):
+++ In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor A. T. Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with GENITIVES. We have seen that the substantive MAY still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.” - p. 791, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament.
And, this highly respected trinitarian New Testament Greek authority also tells us:
“In examples like this [“prepositional” constructions] (cf. ... Mt. 27:54) ONLY THE CONTEXT CAN DECIDE [whether the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite]. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful.... [Please note that the example Robertson has given (Matt. 27:54) has the anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb as in Colwell’s Rule!] In Jo. 5:27 [‘son of man’] may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’” - p. 781. [Robertson says this in spite of the fact that John 5:27 also has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding its verb!! It’s “prepositional” (noun modified by a genitive noun in these cases) and, therefore, the use of the article is ambiguous!] - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, 1934.
+++ “The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43.” - Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 133, University of Chicago Press, 1961.
+++ “#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - H. W. Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges, p. 291.
This NWT critic's statement is false!
The NWT is certainly not falsifying here!
tigger2
Active Member
John 14:14
Robert Bowman in his Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baker Book House, 1991:
"John 14:14 should also be mentioned [as a 'faulty translation' in the NWT]. In the NWT this reads: “If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it.” The Greek text in the KIT [Kingdom Interlinear Translation], however, has me after ask, so that it should be translated: “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones included it, and most modern editions of the Greek New Testament include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this reading in a note." - pp. 67-68.
But at John 14:14 'me' is omitted after 'ask' in the following trinitarian Bibles:
ASV; CBW; Darby; GNV; JB; KJ21; KJV; MLB; NEB; REB; NKJV; LB; MKJV (Green); NLV; RSV; WEB; WE; Young’s.
Many of them do not mention an alternate reading of 'me' in a note! And, likewise, many of the Bibles which do translate ‘ask me’ in this verse do not mention an alternate reading without ‘me’!!
The prestigious The Expositor’s Greek New Testament (Vol. 1, p. 824) also omits “me” from its text and does not even bother to address the matter in its voluminous notes. Bible Analyzer calls this 5-volume work “The Premier Greek Resource.”
This is a disputed text. There exists manuscript evidence that ‘me’ may not have been used by the original writer. (Also see Sahidic Coptic Insight on NT Verses - Nov. 2, 2010 - where ‘Memra’ explains the importance of the ancient Coptic translation of this verse.)
However, there is no such dispute about John 16:23 where John wrote: “... whatever you ask the Father for, he will give you in my name.” We should ask the Father (not the Son) in Jesus’ name. Therefore 'me' at John 14:14 is even more in doubt.
Bowman has access to a copy of (and is quite familiar with) the 1984 NWT Reference Bible. He repeatedly quotes from it and refers to notes in it in both this 1991 publication (Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses) and his 1989 publication, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.
Yes, the 1984 NWT Reference Bible (which does have notes, of course) says in a footnote for John 14:14:
14* “Ask,” ADIt and in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23; P66 [Aleph]BWVgSy(h,p), “ask me.”
So for Bowman to pretend here that the NWT does not even mention that some Greek manuscripts have the word ‘me’ in this verse is simply inexcusable!
Robert Bowman in his Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baker Book House, 1991:
"John 14:14 should also be mentioned [as a 'faulty translation' in the NWT]. In the NWT this reads: “If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it.” The Greek text in the KIT [Kingdom Interlinear Translation], however, has me after ask, so that it should be translated: “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones included it, and most modern editions of the Greek New Testament include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this reading in a note." - pp. 67-68.
But at John 14:14 'me' is omitted after 'ask' in the following trinitarian Bibles:
ASV; CBW; Darby; GNV; JB; KJ21; KJV; MLB; NEB; REB; NKJV; LB; MKJV (Green); NLV; RSV; WEB; WE; Young’s.
Many of them do not mention an alternate reading of 'me' in a note! And, likewise, many of the Bibles which do translate ‘ask me’ in this verse do not mention an alternate reading without ‘me’!!
The prestigious The Expositor’s Greek New Testament (Vol. 1, p. 824) also omits “me” from its text and does not even bother to address the matter in its voluminous notes. Bible Analyzer calls this 5-volume work “The Premier Greek Resource.”
This is a disputed text. There exists manuscript evidence that ‘me’ may not have been used by the original writer. (Also see Sahidic Coptic Insight on NT Verses - Nov. 2, 2010 - where ‘Memra’ explains the importance of the ancient Coptic translation of this verse.)
However, there is no such dispute about John 16:23 where John wrote: “... whatever you ask the Father for, he will give you in my name.” We should ask the Father (not the Son) in Jesus’ name. Therefore 'me' at John 14:14 is even more in doubt.
Bowman has access to a copy of (and is quite familiar with) the 1984 NWT Reference Bible. He repeatedly quotes from it and refers to notes in it in both this 1991 publication (Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses) and his 1989 publication, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.
Yes, the 1984 NWT Reference Bible (which does have notes, of course) says in a footnote for John 14:14:
14* “Ask,” ADIt and in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23; P66 [Aleph]BWVgSy(h,p), “ask me.”
So for Bowman to pretend here that the NWT does not even mention that some Greek manuscripts have the word ‘me’ in this verse is simply inexcusable!
tigger2
Active Member
“Other” at Col. 1:16 (Part A)
“For through [Jesus] all things were created in heaven and on earth” - MLB.
“by means of [Jesus] all [other] things were created” - NWT (1984).
The use of the word “other” by the NWT at Col. 1:16 makes many trinitarian “scholars” very upset. Dr. Walter Martin tells us in his The Kingdom of the Cults, 1985 ed., p. 75 that this “dishonest rendering of Col. 1:16, 17, and 19 by the insertion of the word ‘other’” is “one of the most clever perversions of the New Testament texts that the author has ever seen.” He further states that “attempting to justify this unheard of travesty upon the Greek language and simple honesty, the New World Bible Translation Committee enclosed each added ‘other’ in brackets.”
Here the accusation is perfectly clear: Martin is claiming that the NWT has dishonestly added to God’s Word! But what is the truth about words added to the original text?
Well, the KJV also adds words at many places in the scriptures and frequently signifies these additions by italicizing such added words. In fact all Bible translations add words to make the intended meaning of the original language clear to the readers of another language. The NWT in its earlier editions indicated added words with brackets [ ] and did so at Col. 1:16, 17 with [“other”]!
Yes, all Bible translators supply needed words in accordance with their own understanding of what meaning they believe the Bible writer actually intended. Any serious Bible student knows this elementary fact. You can see that the KJV translators (and NIV, NKJV, TEV/GNB, Beck, etc.) added the word “other” at Acts 5:29 (and rightly so) even though it is not actually written in the original text (also compare KJV at Job 24:24). Were they, then, dishonestly, blasphemously adding to God’s Word? Of course not!
The Bible writers often excluded the subject (and others with him) when using the term “all” (and “every”). This is a common usage even today. For example, the police lieutenant making an arrest of a criminal group might tell his men: “Arrest everyone in this room!” Obviously the lieutenant does not include himself (nor his men who are with him) even though he says “everyone”!
[Here is the most recent example that just presented itself a few minutes after I was re-reviewing this study paper in 2004:
Jun 5, 5:47 PM (ET)
By TERENCE HUNT
WASHINGTON (AP) - Ronald Reagan, the cheerful crusader who devoted his presidency to winning the Cold War, trying to scale back government and making people believe it was "morning again in America," died Saturday after a long twilight struggle with Alzheimer's disease. He was 93.
....
"Reagan lived longer than any U.S. President, ...."
But to be accurate we must remember that Reagan was one of those U.S. Presidents! Obviously the AP writer did not mean to imply that Reagan hadn’t ever been President. We all understand that what he meant was “Reagan lived longer than any other President”!– added 5 June 2004, emphasis added]
This also applies to the word “all” [πάντα, πάντὸς, πᾶς, etc.] as used in the early Greek manuscripts of the Bible.
And we find NEB; REB; NJB; NAB (‘91); GNB; and LB (for example) have honestly added “other” at Ezek. 31:5 to show that a certain tree towered above “all other trees” whereas KJV, NASB, RSV (for example) have it towering “above all trees.” Since it does not tower above itself, the Bible writer obviously excluded it from the phrase “all trees” (even though it is also a tree itself and a part of “all trees”) just as Col. 1:16 excludes Jesus from all other things.
In Matthew 10:22, Jesus tells his followers: “and you will be hated by all [παντων] because of my name.” - NRSV. Certainly, Jesus didn’t mean that his followers would be hated by Jesus himself or by God. And most certainly he didn’t mean they would be hated by themselves! (Remember, the subject – as in 1 Cor. 1:16 - is often understood to be excluded from the “all” statements.)
The Moffatt translation, An American Translation, The Common Bible, The Amplified Bible, and translations by C. B. Williams, and Beck all add “other” after “all” at 1 Cor. 15:24 (e.g. “when he will put an end to all other government, authority, and power” - C. B. Williams, The New Testament in the Language of the People, Moody Press, 1963). Although the NWT does not happen to add “other” at that scripture, its translators (as well as every other Jehovah’s Witness on earth) would whole-heartedly agree that those who have added “other” there have done so properly and that the original Bible writer so intended the meaning!
And conversely, at Jn 2:10 the NWT has added “other,” and, although most [other] translations do not add it, I’m sure most people would agree that, whether actually written in the scripture or not, context demands such an understanding: “Every other man puts out the fine wine first...”
Again, at 1 Cor. 6:18 the respected trinitarian Bibles NIV, NASB, NEB, REB, AT, GNB, TEV, JB, NJB (among others) have added “other” to the text. And the NWT agrees whole-heartedly! And at Matt. 6:33 JB, AT, GNB, TEV, and Beck (Lutheran scholar) have added “other” (NEB has added “the rest”), and, again, the NWT agrees.
Or how about Luke 13:2 where many trinitarian translations add ‘other’:
“all the other Galileans” - NIV
“all other Galileans” – NASB
“all other Galileans” – NAB (’91)
“all other Galileans” - NRSV
"all the other Galileans" - ESV
“all other Galileans” - NKJV
“all the other Galileans” – RSV
“anyone else in Galilee” – NEB and REB
“than any other Galileans” - JB
“than all other Galileans” - NJB
“any other Galileans” - AT
"above all the other Galileans" - KJ21
"than all the other Galileans?" - CEB
"everyone else in Galilee" - CEV
"than all the other Galileans" - MEV
"than all the other Galileans" - CSB
"all other Galileans" - TEV
"than the rest of the Galileans" - TLV
"than all the other Galileans" - Mounce
"than all the other Galileans" - WEB
"than all the other people in Galilee?" - WE
"than other people from Galilee?" - GW
"all other Galilaeans" - BBE
"other people from Galilee" - GodsWord
"all the other Galileans" - ISV NT
"than all others from Galilee?" - ICB
"than all the other Galileans" - ISV
“the rest of the Galileans” - Moffatt
"than all others from Galilee?" - NCV
"than all the other Galileans" - NET
When Gen. 3:20 tells us that Eve “was the mother of all living,” does that really make her the mother of Adam? of all animals? of all plants? of angels? of God? So, although the literal Hebrew says “all,” we know from the teachings of the rest of the Bible that this is a severely qualified “all,” and it would be perfectly honest to add some qualifying word or phrase (“all other humans” - after all, she, although the subject, wasn’t her own mother, or Adam’s).
Another good example of honest adding can be seen in reference to another too literal interpretation of “all.” Romans 3:23 says literally, “All have sinned” -- but, obviously, Jesus, the Father, and myriads of faithful angels have not sinned! So some Bibles (including TEV and NAB [1970 ed.]) have honestly qualified this “all” by adding to this scripture and translated it “All men have sinned.” You may notice also that they haven’t even bothered to indicate that the word “men” has been added.
“For through [Jesus] all things were created in heaven and on earth” - MLB.
“by means of [Jesus] all [other] things were created” - NWT (1984).
The use of the word “other” by the NWT at Col. 1:16 makes many trinitarian “scholars” very upset. Dr. Walter Martin tells us in his The Kingdom of the Cults, 1985 ed., p. 75 that this “dishonest rendering of Col. 1:16, 17, and 19 by the insertion of the word ‘other’” is “one of the most clever perversions of the New Testament texts that the author has ever seen.” He further states that “attempting to justify this unheard of travesty upon the Greek language and simple honesty, the New World Bible Translation Committee enclosed each added ‘other’ in brackets.”
Here the accusation is perfectly clear: Martin is claiming that the NWT has dishonestly added to God’s Word! But what is the truth about words added to the original text?
Well, the KJV also adds words at many places in the scriptures and frequently signifies these additions by italicizing such added words. In fact all Bible translations add words to make the intended meaning of the original language clear to the readers of another language. The NWT in its earlier editions indicated added words with brackets [ ] and did so at Col. 1:16, 17 with [“other”]!
Yes, all Bible translators supply needed words in accordance with their own understanding of what meaning they believe the Bible writer actually intended. Any serious Bible student knows this elementary fact. You can see that the KJV translators (and NIV, NKJV, TEV/GNB, Beck, etc.) added the word “other” at Acts 5:29 (and rightly so) even though it is not actually written in the original text (also compare KJV at Job 24:24). Were they, then, dishonestly, blasphemously adding to God’s Word? Of course not!
The Bible writers often excluded the subject (and others with him) when using the term “all” (and “every”). This is a common usage even today. For example, the police lieutenant making an arrest of a criminal group might tell his men: “Arrest everyone in this room!” Obviously the lieutenant does not include himself (nor his men who are with him) even though he says “everyone”!
[Here is the most recent example that just presented itself a few minutes after I was re-reviewing this study paper in 2004:
Jun 5, 5:47 PM (ET)
By TERENCE HUNT
WASHINGTON (AP) - Ronald Reagan, the cheerful crusader who devoted his presidency to winning the Cold War, trying to scale back government and making people believe it was "morning again in America," died Saturday after a long twilight struggle with Alzheimer's disease. He was 93.
....
"Reagan lived longer than any U.S. President, ...."
But to be accurate we must remember that Reagan was one of those U.S. Presidents! Obviously the AP writer did not mean to imply that Reagan hadn’t ever been President. We all understand that what he meant was “Reagan lived longer than any other President”!– added 5 June 2004, emphasis added]
This also applies to the word “all” [πάντα, πάντὸς, πᾶς, etc.] as used in the early Greek manuscripts of the Bible.
And we find NEB; REB; NJB; NAB (‘91); GNB; and LB (for example) have honestly added “other” at Ezek. 31:5 to show that a certain tree towered above “all other trees” whereas KJV, NASB, RSV (for example) have it towering “above all trees.” Since it does not tower above itself, the Bible writer obviously excluded it from the phrase “all trees” (even though it is also a tree itself and a part of “all trees”) just as Col. 1:16 excludes Jesus from all other things.
In Matthew 10:22, Jesus tells his followers: “and you will be hated by all [παντων] because of my name.” - NRSV. Certainly, Jesus didn’t mean that his followers would be hated by Jesus himself or by God. And most certainly he didn’t mean they would be hated by themselves! (Remember, the subject – as in 1 Cor. 1:16 - is often understood to be excluded from the “all” statements.)
The Moffatt translation, An American Translation, The Common Bible, The Amplified Bible, and translations by C. B. Williams, and Beck all add “other” after “all” at 1 Cor. 15:24 (e.g. “when he will put an end to all other government, authority, and power” - C. B. Williams, The New Testament in the Language of the People, Moody Press, 1963). Although the NWT does not happen to add “other” at that scripture, its translators (as well as every other Jehovah’s Witness on earth) would whole-heartedly agree that those who have added “other” there have done so properly and that the original Bible writer so intended the meaning!
And conversely, at Jn 2:10 the NWT has added “other,” and, although most [other] translations do not add it, I’m sure most people would agree that, whether actually written in the scripture or not, context demands such an understanding: “Every other man puts out the fine wine first...”
Again, at 1 Cor. 6:18 the respected trinitarian Bibles NIV, NASB, NEB, REB, AT, GNB, TEV, JB, NJB (among others) have added “other” to the text. And the NWT agrees whole-heartedly! And at Matt. 6:33 JB, AT, GNB, TEV, and Beck (Lutheran scholar) have added “other” (NEB has added “the rest”), and, again, the NWT agrees.
Or how about Luke 13:2 where many trinitarian translations add ‘other’:
“all the other Galileans” - NIV
“all other Galileans” – NASB
“all other Galileans” – NAB (’91)
“all other Galileans” - NRSV
"all the other Galileans" - ESV
“all other Galileans” - NKJV
“all the other Galileans” – RSV
“anyone else in Galilee” – NEB and REB
“than any other Galileans” - JB
“than all other Galileans” - NJB
“any other Galileans” - AT
"above all the other Galileans" - KJ21
"than all the other Galileans?" - CEB
"everyone else in Galilee" - CEV
"than all the other Galileans" - MEV
"than all the other Galileans" - CSB
"all other Galileans" - TEV
"than the rest of the Galileans" - TLV
"than all the other Galileans" - Mounce
"than all the other Galileans" - WEB
"than all the other people in Galilee?" - WE
"than other people from Galilee?" - GW
"all other Galilaeans" - BBE
"other people from Galilee" - GodsWord
"all the other Galileans" - ISV NT
"than all others from Galilee?" - ICB
"than all the other Galileans" - ISV
“the rest of the Galileans” - Moffatt
"than all others from Galilee?" - NCV
"than all the other Galileans" - NET
When Gen. 3:20 tells us that Eve “was the mother of all living,” does that really make her the mother of Adam? of all animals? of all plants? of angels? of God? So, although the literal Hebrew says “all,” we know from the teachings of the rest of the Bible that this is a severely qualified “all,” and it would be perfectly honest to add some qualifying word or phrase (“all other humans” - after all, she, although the subject, wasn’t her own mother, or Adam’s).
Another good example of honest adding can be seen in reference to another too literal interpretation of “all.” Romans 3:23 says literally, “All have sinned” -- but, obviously, Jesus, the Father, and myriads of faithful angels have not sinned! So some Bibles (including TEV and NAB [1970 ed.]) have honestly qualified this “all” by adding to this scripture and translated it “All men have sinned.” You may notice also that they haven’t even bothered to indicate that the word “men” has been added.
tigger2
Active Member
Part B ("Other")
Also in Romans we find the very same words used by Paul in Col. 1:16 (ta panta) - “He [God] didn’t spare His own Son but gave him up for all of us - He will certainly with Him give us everything [ta panta].” - Ro. 8:32, Beck (Lutheran). Obviously, the “everything” that is given to Christians does not include God or Jesus, or even fellow created Christians. It certainly would not be improper to translate this as: “He will ... give us all [other] things.” In fact, notice these trinitarian Bible translations:
“... how can he fail to lavish every other gift upon us?” - REB.
“ ... will he not with him also give us everything else?” - NRSV
“... won’t he also surely give us everything else?” - Living Bible.
“... will he not also give us everything else along with him?” - NAB (‘91)
“... will He not with Him graciously give us everything else?” - CBW.
Since ta panta does not include all created things in this scripture, it certainly does not have to mean all created things in Col. 1:16!
Yes, Col. 1:16, 17 needs a qualified “all” as the teaching of the rest of the Bible testifies. It is similar to Hebrews 2:8 in this respect.
At Heb. 2:8 we read: “Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.” However, it would certainly be honest and proper for a translator familiar with the teachings of the rest of the Bible (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:27) to add the qualifying words to this scripture that were understood and intended by the original writer. E.g., “Thou hast put all [other] things in subjection...;” or even, “Thou hast put all things [except the Father and yourself] in subjection...” - see 1 Cor. 15:27 below.
(KJV) 1 Corinthians 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him.
(NASB) 1 Corinthians 15:27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He [the Father] is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him [the Son].
(NIV) …. Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything [ta panta] under Christ.
Similarly, we find Paul saying at Phil. 2:9 that God exalted Jesus and “bestowed on him the name above all names.” - NEB. But, obviously, his name is not above the name of the God who exalted him. Therefore, it is not wrong to add “other” and render this as “God ... gave him the name which is above all other names” as did the translators of JB; NJB; NAB (1970); NCV; NLT; AT; GNB/TEV; CEV; LB; CBW; Beck (NT); ETRV; GW; and NLV.
Paul continues in Phil. 2:10, “So that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth....” But, obviously, the Father in heaven does not bend his knee, and Jesus certainly does not bend his knee to himself! This, too, should be a qualified “every knee”! (And analyze 1 Pet. 4:7)
So how accurate are those who say the translators of the NWT have made a “dishonest rendering of Col. 1:16, 17, and 19 by the insertion of the word ‘other’”?
Well, let’s look at Col. 1:17 itself: “And he is before all things.” - KJV. This is the literal wording and what Martin wants.
But look at what these [other] trinitarian translations have added to this verse:
“He is before all else that is...” - NAB (‘70)
“He was before all else began...” - LB
“God’s Son was before all else” - CEV
“He existed before anything else” - NLT
"He himself existed before anything else did" - ISV
Since it is obvious that Christ did not exist before himself, nor before the Father, these two, at least, have to be excluded from “all things.”
Therefore, the very trinitarian NAB, LB, and NLT, etc. above have properly added “else” to this scripture. This is the same thing as writing “before every [other] thing”!
Consider John 10:29: “My Father … is greater than all” – KJV.
Then the Father is greater than the Son and greater than the Holy Spirit and “greater even than Himself???”
The Living Bible says, My Father “is more powerful than anyone else,” which still means He is greater than the Son and greater than the Holy Spirit [if it were really a person], but, at least, shows He is not greater than Himself. - also NLT; ISV; AMP; God’s Word; CEV; Worldwide English Bible.
And, Rev. 4:11 “For you [the Father seated on the throne - see Rev. 5:6-9] created everything [panta]” – CBW. (But, literally, panta -“all” or “all things” – would have to include the Father Himself and the Son and the Holy Spirit!).
Notice how the subject (“the Father") is excluded from “all things” [ta panta] in these scriptures and is clearly understood to mean that he created all other things. If this understanding is necessary here (as it is), then it is equally valid at Col. 1:16-17.
Certainly it is not wrong from a grammatical viewpoint (nor is it a “dishonest rendering”) to add “other” as the NWT has done at Col. 1:16, 17 (and the LB and the NAB have done with “else” at Col. 1:17) and so many trinitarian translators have done in other similar situations. Whether it is doctrinally correct as Rev. 3:14, Prov. 8:22-30, 1 John 4:9 (“only-begotten”), and Col. 1:15 (“firstborn of all creation”) suggest is a matter for all honest-hearted persons to discover but not a reason for falsely accusing someone of dishonestly rendering God’s Word!
Also in Romans we find the very same words used by Paul in Col. 1:16 (ta panta) - “He [God] didn’t spare His own Son but gave him up for all of us - He will certainly with Him give us everything [ta panta].” - Ro. 8:32, Beck (Lutheran). Obviously, the “everything” that is given to Christians does not include God or Jesus, or even fellow created Christians. It certainly would not be improper to translate this as: “He will ... give us all [other] things.” In fact, notice these trinitarian Bible translations:
“... how can he fail to lavish every other gift upon us?” - REB.
“ ... will he not with him also give us everything else?” - NRSV
“... won’t he also surely give us everything else?” - Living Bible.
“... will he not also give us everything else along with him?” - NAB (‘91)
“... will He not with Him graciously give us everything else?” - CBW.
Since ta panta does not include all created things in this scripture, it certainly does not have to mean all created things in Col. 1:16!
Yes, Col. 1:16, 17 needs a qualified “all” as the teaching of the rest of the Bible testifies. It is similar to Hebrews 2:8 in this respect.
At Heb. 2:8 we read: “Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.” However, it would certainly be honest and proper for a translator familiar with the teachings of the rest of the Bible (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:27) to add the qualifying words to this scripture that were understood and intended by the original writer. E.g., “Thou hast put all [other] things in subjection...;” or even, “Thou hast put all things [except the Father and yourself] in subjection...” - see 1 Cor. 15:27 below.
(KJV) 1 Corinthians 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him.
(NASB) 1 Corinthians 15:27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He [the Father] is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him [the Son].
(NIV) …. Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything [ta panta] under Christ.
Similarly, we find Paul saying at Phil. 2:9 that God exalted Jesus and “bestowed on him the name above all names.” - NEB. But, obviously, his name is not above the name of the God who exalted him. Therefore, it is not wrong to add “other” and render this as “God ... gave him the name which is above all other names” as did the translators of JB; NJB; NAB (1970); NCV; NLT; AT; GNB/TEV; CEV; LB; CBW; Beck (NT); ETRV; GW; and NLV.
Paul continues in Phil. 2:10, “So that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth....” But, obviously, the Father in heaven does not bend his knee, and Jesus certainly does not bend his knee to himself! This, too, should be a qualified “every knee”! (And analyze 1 Pet. 4:7)
So how accurate are those who say the translators of the NWT have made a “dishonest rendering of Col. 1:16, 17, and 19 by the insertion of the word ‘other’”?
Well, let’s look at Col. 1:17 itself: “And he is before all things.” - KJV. This is the literal wording and what Martin wants.
But look at what these [other] trinitarian translations have added to this verse:
“He is before all else that is...” - NAB (‘70)
“He was before all else began...” - LB
“God’s Son was before all else” - CEV
“He existed before anything else” - NLT
"He himself existed before anything else did" - ISV
Since it is obvious that Christ did not exist before himself, nor before the Father, these two, at least, have to be excluded from “all things.”
Therefore, the very trinitarian NAB, LB, and NLT, etc. above have properly added “else” to this scripture. This is the same thing as writing “before every [other] thing”!
Consider John 10:29: “My Father … is greater than all” – KJV.
Then the Father is greater than the Son and greater than the Holy Spirit and “greater even than Himself???”
The Living Bible says, My Father “is more powerful than anyone else,” which still means He is greater than the Son and greater than the Holy Spirit [if it were really a person], but, at least, shows He is not greater than Himself. - also NLT; ISV; AMP; God’s Word; CEV; Worldwide English Bible.
And, Rev. 4:11 “For you [the Father seated on the throne - see Rev. 5:6-9] created everything [panta]” – CBW. (But, literally, panta -“all” or “all things” – would have to include the Father Himself and the Son and the Holy Spirit!).
Notice how the subject (“the Father") is excluded from “all things” [ta panta] in these scriptures and is clearly understood to mean that he created all other things. If this understanding is necessary here (as it is), then it is equally valid at Col. 1:16-17.
Certainly it is not wrong from a grammatical viewpoint (nor is it a “dishonest rendering”) to add “other” as the NWT has done at Col. 1:16, 17 (and the LB and the NAB have done with “else” at Col. 1:17) and so many trinitarian translators have done in other similar situations. Whether it is doctrinally correct as Rev. 3:14, Prov. 8:22-30, 1 John 4:9 (“only-begotten”), and Col. 1:15 (“firstborn of all creation”) suggest is a matter for all honest-hearted persons to discover but not a reason for falsely accusing someone of dishonestly rendering God’s Word!
Hey Tony, hope you’re staying healthy!
In John 17:1....Who is Jesus talking to? Not himself.
When Jesus prayed, “Father, remove this cup from me”.....he wasn’t talking to himself.
When Jesus was baptized, Who’s voice said from heaven, “This is My Son, the beloved”?
At John 4:22-24, Jesus as a Jew told the Samaritan woman, “We worship what we know.” Who was that? He goes on say, “the Father is looking for such like ones to worship Him.” He did not include himself.
Take care, my friend!
Hi Hockeycowboy, hope you are well and happy.
That is a great question and luckily Baha'u'llah has given us much more Truth to consider.
I will not go into it in great detail, but in one way you are correct, Jesus was talking with His Spirit, the Christ aspect of Jesus, which is all we can know of God.
Baha'u'llah has said that it was He that conversed with Moses through the burning bush, yet Moses is also born of that same Holy Spirit. This is how Shoghi Effendi puts it;
"Bahá’u’lláh is not the Intermediary between other Manifestations and God. Each has His own relation to the Primal Source. But in the sense that Bahá’u’lláh is the greatest Manifestation to yet appear, the One Who consummates the Revelation of Moses; He was the One Moses conversed with in the Burning Bush. In other words Bahá’u’lláh identifies the glory of the Godhead on that occasion with Himself. No distinction can be made amongst the Prophets in the sense that They all proceed from One Source, and are of One Essence. But Their stations and functions in this world are different." (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, October 19, 1947)
As such, I see that Jesus Christ was also conversing with the Glory of God, Baha'u'llah. All the Messengers are One in the Hoky Spirit and the Holy Spirit is of God.
This is why at times we see in the Bible that Jesus talks with the Authority as God, then at times as God's Messenger and then at times as a man like us. It is also why Jesus says the Father is greater than I, but also says the Father and I are One.
Big topic, many many writings given by Baha'u'llah on how all is connected.
Regards Tony
Excellent!
Another Scripture in the older NWT version where an added word was parenthetized is in John 1:1 itself:
“In [the] beginning”. Now if that’s not trying to be honest, I don’t know what is!
tigger2
Active Member
The translators of the NWT have examined the text of the NT and determined that it contains some quotes from the OT text which contain the name of God (YHWH or 'Jehovah' as transliterated in the KJV and the ASV). Because of this they have replaced the NT Greek word found in the NT text with that name ('Jehovah') as found in these OT quotes. They have carefully given the reason for this in their footnotes and appendix so no one should misunderstand.
Nevertheless, many anti-NWT writers have tantrums about this.
Robert H. Countess authored a book defaming the Bible translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses: “The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament - A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures [NWT],” Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1982 (2nd ed. 1987). (I got my copy from Christian Book Distributors [CBD] in October 1994.)
It is noteworthy that this book was originally produced as a doctoral thesis by Mr. Countess in 1966. He then published it in 1982. After 5 years he made a few corrections and published the present (second edition) version in 1987. He says in the preface to this second edition: “The present edition of The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament embodies all of the earlier text except for the correction of typographical errors noted by the author and the readers.” - p. vii.
He strongly criticizes the NWT for replacing the name 'Jehovah' when the existing NT MSS read kurios ('Lord') even though they are in quotes from or clear references to OT scriptures which use the Divine Name. He, nevertheless, also criticizes them for NOT using 'Jehovah' when 'Lord' is used in the NT text for Jesus (at places where he claims the OT is also being quoted).
For example, in his Table IV (p. 104) Countess claims that John only quoted twice from the OT where it originally used “Jehovah,” whereas the NWT has used “Jehovah” 5 times in the Gospel of John. Furthermore, of those 5 times, he claims, only one is actually based on an OT use of “Jehovah”! In other words, the NWT is dishonest in 4 of its 5 uses of “Jehovah” in the Gospel of John because they are not based on an OT use of “Jehovah”!
We have seen that even respected trinitarian scholars disagree as to whether certain NT scriptures are quotes (or clear, direct references) to OT scriptures or not. Sometimes the evidence is simply not strong enough to make it certain. However, for a Bible to disagree with all other Bibles and scholars in 80 per cent (4 out of 5) of such cases might justify an honest accusation of dishonesty.
The five uses of “Jehovah” in John by the NWT are Jn 1:23; 6:45; 12:13; and 12:38 (twice). Is it really true, as Countess claims, that only one of these uses a quote from the OT where “Jehovah” was used?
(1) ALL of the trinitarian Bible translations I used above to determine what was a quote from the OT and what was not (NKJV; RSV; NRSV; NASB; NIV; REB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); JB; NJB; MLB; Moffatt; and Beck) show Jn 1:23 to be a quote from the OT: Is. 40:3 (which does use “Jehovah” in the OT manuscripts). And NKJV actually uses its keyword (‘LORD’) here which indicates “Jehovah” was in the original!
(2) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Jn 6:45 to be a quote from the OT: Is. 54:13 (which does use “Jehovah” in the OT manuscripts).
(3) Six of those same trinitarian Bibles (NKJV; NASB; JB; NJB; Moffatt; and Beck) show Jn 12:13 to be a quote from the OT: Ps. 118:26 (which does use “Jehovah” in the OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (‘LORD’) here which indicates “Jehovah” was in the original!
(4) & (5) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Jn 12:38 to be a quote from the OT: Is. 53:1 (which does use “Jehovah” once in the OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword ‘LORD’ here (once only, however) which indicates “Jehovah” was in the original! The only possible accusation of “dishonesty” here could be the fact that the NWT has rendered both ‘Lord’s in Jn 12:38 as “Jehovah” whereas the OT text being quoted uses only one “Jehovah.” However, the context certainly suggests that the first “Lord” is directed to Jehovah also. And a number of Hebrew New Testament translations have rendered both ‘Lord’s at Jn 12:38 as “Jehovah.” This includes the two I have in my possession which are translated by respected trinitarians: (1) by the United Bible Societies, 1983 printing; and (2) Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament, The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1981 printing.
So just how is the NWT being “dishonest” by using “Jehovah” 5 times in these 4 verses in the Gospel of John where John is quoting from the OT? And how honest is Mr. Countess when he tells us that only one use of “Jehovah” in the NWT is supported by a quote from the OT by the Gospel of John?
Exactly who is being dishonest?
Nevertheless, many anti-NWT writers have tantrums about this.
Robert H. Countess authored a book defaming the Bible translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses: “The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament - A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures [NWT],” Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1982 (2nd ed. 1987). (I got my copy from Christian Book Distributors [CBD] in October 1994.)
It is noteworthy that this book was originally produced as a doctoral thesis by Mr. Countess in 1966. He then published it in 1982. After 5 years he made a few corrections and published the present (second edition) version in 1987. He says in the preface to this second edition: “The present edition of The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament embodies all of the earlier text except for the correction of typographical errors noted by the author and the readers.” - p. vii.
He strongly criticizes the NWT for replacing the name 'Jehovah' when the existing NT MSS read kurios ('Lord') even though they are in quotes from or clear references to OT scriptures which use the Divine Name. He, nevertheless, also criticizes them for NOT using 'Jehovah' when 'Lord' is used in the NT text for Jesus (at places where he claims the OT is also being quoted).
For example, in his Table IV (p. 104) Countess claims that John only quoted twice from the OT where it originally used “Jehovah,” whereas the NWT has used “Jehovah” 5 times in the Gospel of John. Furthermore, of those 5 times, he claims, only one is actually based on an OT use of “Jehovah”! In other words, the NWT is dishonest in 4 of its 5 uses of “Jehovah” in the Gospel of John because they are not based on an OT use of “Jehovah”!
We have seen that even respected trinitarian scholars disagree as to whether certain NT scriptures are quotes (or clear, direct references) to OT scriptures or not. Sometimes the evidence is simply not strong enough to make it certain. However, for a Bible to disagree with all other Bibles and scholars in 80 per cent (4 out of 5) of such cases might justify an honest accusation of dishonesty.
The five uses of “Jehovah” in John by the NWT are Jn 1:23; 6:45; 12:13; and 12:38 (twice). Is it really true, as Countess claims, that only one of these uses a quote from the OT where “Jehovah” was used?
(1) ALL of the trinitarian Bible translations I used above to determine what was a quote from the OT and what was not (NKJV; RSV; NRSV; NASB; NIV; REB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); JB; NJB; MLB; Moffatt; and Beck) show Jn 1:23 to be a quote from the OT: Is. 40:3 (which does use “Jehovah” in the OT manuscripts). And NKJV actually uses its keyword (‘LORD’) here which indicates “Jehovah” was in the original!
(2) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Jn 6:45 to be a quote from the OT: Is. 54:13 (which does use “Jehovah” in the OT manuscripts).
(3) Six of those same trinitarian Bibles (NKJV; NASB; JB; NJB; Moffatt; and Beck) show Jn 12:13 to be a quote from the OT: Ps. 118:26 (which does use “Jehovah” in the OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (‘LORD’) here which indicates “Jehovah” was in the original!
(4) & (5) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Jn 12:38 to be a quote from the OT: Is. 53:1 (which does use “Jehovah” once in the OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword ‘LORD’ here (once only, however) which indicates “Jehovah” was in the original! The only possible accusation of “dishonesty” here could be the fact that the NWT has rendered both ‘Lord’s in Jn 12:38 as “Jehovah” whereas the OT text being quoted uses only one “Jehovah.” However, the context certainly suggests that the first “Lord” is directed to Jehovah also. And a number of Hebrew New Testament translations have rendered both ‘Lord’s at Jn 12:38 as “Jehovah.” This includes the two I have in my possession which are translated by respected trinitarians: (1) by the United Bible Societies, 1983 printing; and (2) Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament, The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1981 printing.
So just how is the NWT being “dishonest” by using “Jehovah” 5 times in these 4 verses in the Gospel of John where John is quoting from the OT? And how honest is Mr. Countess when he tells us that only one use of “Jehovah” in the NWT is supported by a quote from the OT by the Gospel of John?
Exactly who is being dishonest?
Last edited: