Isaiah 53:10 has God capitol G.--Satan is called god at 2 Cor 4:4, yet he is not God is he? So your reasoning is faulty. He does have godlike qualities as small g god means.
What do JW's Believe ?
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
Does it means that your explanation is wrong or the verse is wrong?
dwight92070
Well-known member
Hmmm, so why was the NWT changed so many times? And why did JW's die when they refused to take blood transfusions? What is the scripture that forbids that?
Last edited:
TibiasDad
Well-known member
You ignore the point! The article is not used in any of these cases, and yet it is translated God. Therefore, your assertions that the article is necessarily needed to refer to “the True God” are not accurate!
And again they are the same word, with the same meaning; the role they play in the clauses are the only difference.
πρὸς τὸν Θεόν is in the Accusative case
(that being the direct object of the action of the verb “was with”), while in “καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος”, Θεὸς is the predicate nominative, which “renames or redefines the subject of a sentence after a linking verb (like "is," "are," "was," "were"), essentially acting as a synonym for the subject.” (Google definition for “predicate nominative “)
Doug
Last edited:
Duane
Member
You twisting it is the error.
Keep on abstaining from blood- Acts 15:20-- no mortal can prove either way if it includes blood transfusions. The only fact is that God forbids one to put it into their body be eating it. a subject none can prove thus shouldn't be discussed.
The NWT was changed to make it easier to understand. None can understand much of the bible without being taught by these-Matt 24:45
Example-Prov 8:22-Possessed me as the beginning of your way. The Hebrew word for possessed means created--This is speaking about Gods master worker( Prov 8:30)=Jesus.
My post is reality.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
1 Cor 8:4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.”5;For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
7But not everyone possesses this knowledge.Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.
Rom 14:20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
Mark 7:19For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
QED
Doug
Last edited:
TibiasDad
Well-known member
Your reality is theological fantasy… no basis in the reality of the Greek language, vocabulary, or syntax.
Doug
Last edited:
I believe your explanation is in error. Below was from your post#380. You are trapped by your own explanation, see your explanation again I colored blue, you even labelled it as FACT .
"When the true God is spoken of alone in a paragraph-Theos was used, because all know its the true God being spoken of. But when 2 are called God and god in the same paragraph, the only way to show the difference = Ton Theon for the true- God and Theos for god. John 1:1 and 2 Cor 4:4--translating is the same both spots=Theos= god, Ton Theon = God=FACT"
How will you explain that the ("θεος " a god to you) is referred as the true God and eternal life in the last phrase of 1 John 5:20.
I'll post again my evidence for your ready reference.
Hope to see yours not just denial.
1Jn 5:20 And we know G1492 G1161 that G3754 the G3588 son G5207 G3588 of God G2316 has come, G2240 and G2532 has given G1325 to us G1473 thought G1271 that G2443 we should know G1097 the one G3588 true; G228 and G2532 we are G1510.2.4 in G1722 the one G3588 true, G228 in G1722G3588 his son G5207 G1473 Jesus G* Christ. G5547 This one G3778 is G1510.2.3 the G3588 true G228 God, G2316 and G2532 the G3588 life G2222 eternal. G166
1Jn 5:20 οιδαμεν δε G1492 G1161 οτι G3754 ο G3588 υιος G5207 του G3588 θεου G2316 ηκει G2240 και G2532 δεδωκεν G1325 ημιν G1473 διανοιαν G1271 ινα G2443 γινωσκωμεν G1097 τον G3588 αληθινον G228 και G2532 εσμεν G1510.2.4 εν G1722 τω G3588 αληθινω G228 εν G1722 τω G3588 υιω αυτου G5207G1473 Ιησου G* χριστω G5547 ουτος G3778 εστιν G1510.2.3 ο G3588 αληθινος G228 θεος G2316 και G2532 η G3588 ζωη G2222 αιωνιος G166
civic
Well-known member
yes this is a major failure within the watchtower organization. they had no language experts with their translation and failed miserably.
civic
Well-known member
Below is how bad the NWT is and all these Greek Language theologians, scholars and experts confirm how terrible the NWT actually is as an unreliable/biased translation
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible". "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."
Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."
Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"
Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis."
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." [Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.]
Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
Mr. Jehovah's Witness: Are we to simply ignore these eminent Greek scholars, and stubbornly cling to the Man-made teachings of the Watchtower, none of whom had any education to speak of in Greek Grammar?!
The following is taken from the book: "Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses: "who love the truth" 2 Thess.2:10"
In the beginning was the Word.
But WHY was the Word misquoted? JOHN 1:1
This text `THE WORD WAS GOD' has been a problem for four presidents of Jehovah's Witnesses. C.T. Russell thought he found relief when in 1876 N.H. Barbour, an Adventist, introduced him to Wilson's EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT. Mr. Wilson never studied Biblical Greek in a college. He was a follower of John Thomas, a `false prophet' and founder of the Christadelphians. Thomas nor Wilson believed "THE WORD WAS GOD." In the interlinear feature of his book which is no translation at all, Wilson placed `a god' under theos. In his translation, however, of theos, he wrote: "the LOGOS was God."
F.W. Franz. the then current President of Jehovah's Witnesses, realized the deficiency of the DIAGLOTT, decided to translate his own Bible called THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Mr. Franz never studied biblical or koine Greek. He did not graduate from any college nor did he receive a Rhodes Scholarship as he claims. He translates the phrase "the Word was a god." In his KINGDOM INTERLINEAR he interlineates "god was the Word." Such a translation creates another god. "To us there is one God."
F.W. Franz found a translation that agrees with his, THE NEW TESTAMENT by Johannes Greber. (SEE MAKE SURE OF ALL THINGS p.489, 1965 revision.) Who was Johannes Greber? He is the author of another book: COMMUNICATION WITH THE SPIRIT WORLD OF GOD. In it Greber writes on page 300: "After I had convinced myself at the spiritistic meetings that God's spirits speak to men through mediums, as they had spoken to the early Christian communities, my first thought was to beg for full enlightment on these problems concerning Christ. Who was Christ? My request was granted, to the smallest details, and that knowledge thenceforth constituted the most precious possession of my soul. In what follows, I shall repeat the truths regarding Christ. His life, and his work of Redemption, as they were imparted to me by the spirit which taught them."The spirit said: "At that time you were told that Christ is the highest of the spirits created by God and the sole one to be created directly; Christ Himself was not God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world" 1 John 4:1.
Greber's translation is directly from the demon world. He is quoted in Watchtower publications. (See AID TO BIBLE UNDERSTANDING p. 1134)
In the Watchtower publications ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED OF GOD & BENEFICIAL p. 327 it states: "Note what Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson has to say in his review of the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars," THE DIFFERENTIATOR, April 1952.
This sentence is another WATCHTOWER lie. The late Mr. Alexander Thomson was not a Greek or Hebrew Scholar. He in fact did not even formally study Greek or Hebrew in any school according to his co-editor Dr. Frank Neil Pohorlak of Inglewood, CA. Mr. Thomson was employed in a bank in Scotland and did not believe that Jesus was God.
WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?
Dr. Julius R. Mantey: Calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A GROSSLY MISLEADING TRANSLATION." It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 `the Word was a god." But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done."
Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering,... `and the Word was a god,' with the following footnotes:"`A god,' In contrast with `the God'." It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." - THEOLOGY TODAY April, 1953
Dr. J. J. Griesback: "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Diety of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATIONwas apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek."
Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: `...the Word was a god', a translation which is GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." - THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov. 1953
Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in John 4:24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Diety of the Word...in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb;...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.'" John 20:28
Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland, OR.): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek Scholar."
Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the Word was God." - THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July-December, 1971 .p12
http://www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand-Gaien/6470/NWT-hyoban2.html
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible". "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."
Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."
Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"
Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis."
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." [Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.]
Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
Mr. Jehovah's Witness: Are we to simply ignore these eminent Greek scholars, and stubbornly cling to the Man-made teachings of the Watchtower, none of whom had any education to speak of in Greek Grammar?!
The following is taken from the book: "Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses: "who love the truth" 2 Thess.2:10"
In the beginning was the Word.
But WHY was the Word misquoted? JOHN 1:1
This text `THE WORD WAS GOD' has been a problem for four presidents of Jehovah's Witnesses. C.T. Russell thought he found relief when in 1876 N.H. Barbour, an Adventist, introduced him to Wilson's EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT. Mr. Wilson never studied Biblical Greek in a college. He was a follower of John Thomas, a `false prophet' and founder of the Christadelphians. Thomas nor Wilson believed "THE WORD WAS GOD." In the interlinear feature of his book which is no translation at all, Wilson placed `a god' under theos. In his translation, however, of theos, he wrote: "the LOGOS was God."
F.W. Franz. the then current President of Jehovah's Witnesses, realized the deficiency of the DIAGLOTT, decided to translate his own Bible called THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Mr. Franz never studied biblical or koine Greek. He did not graduate from any college nor did he receive a Rhodes Scholarship as he claims. He translates the phrase "the Word was a god." In his KINGDOM INTERLINEAR he interlineates "god was the Word." Such a translation creates another god. "To us there is one God."
F.W. Franz found a translation that agrees with his, THE NEW TESTAMENT by Johannes Greber. (SEE MAKE SURE OF ALL THINGS p.489, 1965 revision.) Who was Johannes Greber? He is the author of another book: COMMUNICATION WITH THE SPIRIT WORLD OF GOD. In it Greber writes on page 300: "After I had convinced myself at the spiritistic meetings that God's spirits speak to men through mediums, as they had spoken to the early Christian communities, my first thought was to beg for full enlightment on these problems concerning Christ. Who was Christ? My request was granted, to the smallest details, and that knowledge thenceforth constituted the most precious possession of my soul. In what follows, I shall repeat the truths regarding Christ. His life, and his work of Redemption, as they were imparted to me by the spirit which taught them."The spirit said: "At that time you were told that Christ is the highest of the spirits created by God and the sole one to be created directly; Christ Himself was not God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world" 1 John 4:1.
Greber's translation is directly from the demon world. He is quoted in Watchtower publications. (See AID TO BIBLE UNDERSTANDING p. 1134)
In the Watchtower publications ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED OF GOD & BENEFICIAL p. 327 it states: "Note what Hebrew and Greek scholar Alexander Thomson has to say in his review of the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars," THE DIFFERENTIATOR, April 1952.
This sentence is another WATCHTOWER lie. The late Mr. Alexander Thomson was not a Greek or Hebrew Scholar. He in fact did not even formally study Greek or Hebrew in any school according to his co-editor Dr. Frank Neil Pohorlak of Inglewood, CA. Mr. Thomson was employed in a bank in Scotland and did not believe that Jesus was God.
WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?
Dr. Julius R. Mantey: Calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A GROSSLY MISLEADING TRANSLATION." It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 `the Word was a god." But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done."
Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering,... `and the Word was a god,' with the following footnotes:"`A god,' In contrast with `the God'." It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." - THEOLOGY TODAY April, 1953
Dr. J. J. Griesback: "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Diety of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATIONwas apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek."
Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: `...the Word was a god', a translation which is GRAMMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." - THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov. 1953
Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in John 4:24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Diety of the Word...in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb;...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.'" John 20:28
Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland, OR.): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek Scholar."
Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the Word was God." - THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July-December, 1971 .p12
http://www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand-Gaien/6470/NWT-hyoban2.html
civic
Well-known member
continued :
In regards to the JW's poor translation known as the New World Translation (NWT) keep in mind the translation committee for the NWT was made up of individuals unqualified to do translations. Here is the list with their backgrounds included:
Frederick W. Franz: Head of the translation committee and chief "translator." Took liberal arts sequence at University of Cincinnati; 21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin. Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year; course titled "The New Testament--A course in grammar and translation." Left in spring of 1914 before completing junior year. Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Entered Brooklyn headquarters facility of Watchtower Society in 1920. Probable ghost writer for J. F. Rutherford (2nd president of WTS) from late 1920s through 1942. Vice president of WTS from 1942 to 1977, president from 1977 until death in 1992 at age 99.
Franz writes in his autobiography: "What a blessing it was to study Bible Greek under Professor Arthur Kensella! Under Dr. Joseph Harry, an author of some Greek works, I also studied the classical Greek. I knew that if I wanted to become a Presbyterian clergyman, I had to have a command of Bible Greek. So I furiously applied myself and got passing grades" (The Watchtower, May 1, 1987, p. 24). Franz gives the impression that the bulk of his Greek studies were "Bible Greek" under "Professor Kensella" and that classical Greek was secondary under "Dr. Joseph Harry." The opposite is true. As mentioned above, Franz only took one 2-hour credit class of "Bible Greek" but 21 hours of classical Greek. According to the course catalog of 1911, Arthur Kensella was not a professor of Greek, as Franz wrote, but an "instructor in Greek." Kensella did not have a Ph.D. and he therefore taught entry-level courses.
Nathan H. Knorr
No training in biblical languages. Entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1923; 3rd president of WTS from 1942 to 1977. Died 1977 at age 72.
Milton G. Henschel
No training in biblical languages. Private secretary and traveling companion to N. H. Knorr from late 1940s until early 1970s. 4th president of WTS from 1992 to 2000. Died 2003 at age 82.
Albert D. Schroeder
No training in biblical languages. Took 3 years of mechanical engineering, unspecified language courses in college, dropped out in 1932 and soon entered Brooklyn headquarters. Registrar of "GileadSchool" from 1942 to 1959. Died 2006 at age 95.
Karl Klein
No training in biblical languages. Entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1925; member of Writing Dept. since 1950. Died 2001 at age 96.
George D. Gangas
No training in biblical languages. Greek-speaking Turkish national, entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1928 as a Greek translator from English to modern Greek publications. Died 1994 at age 98.
Franz was the only man capable of doing translation work. Gangas was a native Greek speaker, knew little of Koine Greek, and apparently helped out with a variety of non-translation tasks including reviewing the English grammar for continuity of expression. From all information published about him personally, one readily concludes that Knorr was the business administrator for the Translation Committee. Henschel might have been on it to take care of legal/secretarial matters. Schroeder and Klein did the copious footnotes (which included textual sources) and cross references and marginal notes, which in the original six volumes of the NWT were more extensive than in the 1984 edition.
[Source: Freeminds and various others]
Here is a Letter that Mantey wrote to the WTBS when they deliberately misquoted him trying to support their false translation
July 11, 1974
Dear Sirs:
I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.
(1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1.
A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity.
B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language.
C. You quotation from p. 148 (3) was a paragraph under the heading: "With the subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied ;in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article, theos signifies divine essence...'theos en ho logos' emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in you letter to Caris.
(2) Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.
(3) Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article."
(4) Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god." Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.
(5) Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58, the addition of "for all time" in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament support is. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes kriseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as the "creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived a human body on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am, (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil 2:6-8. When Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) - "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord."
These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. (Ps. 23:6 and Heb 1:10)
The above are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God's Word.
In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.
Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule."
On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved - no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher."
If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it.
If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.
Regretfully yours,
Julius R. Mantey
Dr. Martin: I don’t know whether you’re aware of it, but there is not a single Greek scholar in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn’t tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were, and the men on that committee could not read New Testament Greek; nor could they read Hebrew; nor did they have any knowledge of systematic theology — except what they had learned from the Watchtower. Only one of them had been to college, and he had dropped out after a year. He briefly studied the biblical languages while there.
Dr. Mantey: He was born in Greece, wasn’t he?
Dr. Martin: Yes, he read modern Greek, and I met him when I visited the Watchtower. I asked him to read John 1:1 in the Greek and then said, “How would you translate it?” He said: “Well, ‘the word was a god.”’ I said: “What is the subject of the sentence?” He just looked at me. So I repeated. “What is the subject of the sentence?” He didn’t know. This was the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek and he didn’t know the subject of the sentence in John 1:1. And these were the people who wrote back to you and said their opinion was as good as yours.
Dr. Martin: Often we find JW publications quoting scholars. Do they quote these people in context?
Dr. Mantey: No. They use this device to fool people into thinking that scholars agree with the JWs. Out of all the Greek professors, grammarians, and commentators they have quoted, only one (a Unitarian) agreed that ‘The word was a god.”
Dr. Martin: You have been quoted as saying that the translators of the NWT are “diabolical deceivers.”
Dr. Mantey: Yes. The translation is deceptive, and I believe it’s a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!
Dr. Martin: What would you say to a JW who was looking for the truth?
Dr. Mantey: I would advise him to get a translation other than the NWT, because ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the JWs. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the JWs and end up in hell.
What do the critics have to say about the New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures?
Edmund C. Gruss, Professor of History and Apologetics at Los Angeles Baptist College, offers five main criticisms of the book: 20 a) The use of paraphrasing in contradiction to the stated purpose. b) The unwarranted insertion of words not found in the Greek. Alexander Thomson makes a similar comment in a statement quoted earlier. c) Erroneous rendering of Greek words. d) Deceptive and misleading footnotes and appendix. e) Arbitrary use and misuse of capitals when dealing with the divine name. (For details of criticisms see footnote 20.) Gruss concludes that the New World Translation Of The Christian Greek Scriptures, "although outwardly scholarly, is plainly in many cases, just the opposite. Its purpose is to bring the errors of the Witnesses into the Word of God. This translation carries no authority except to its originators and their faithful followers, and should be rejected as a perversion of the Word of God." 21
Ray C. Stedman (internationally known author, Bible teacher, pastor, evangelist)
"A close examination, which gets beneath the outward veneer of scholarship, reveals a veritable shambles of bigotry, prejudice, and bias which violates every rule of Biblical criticism and every standard of scholarly integrity." 22
Walter Martin and Norman Klann (The late Dr. Martin was a leading Christian apologist, known internationally for his studies of the Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups.)
"Once it is perceived that Jehovah's Witnesses are only interested in what they can make the scriptures say, and not in what the Holy Spirit has already perfectly revealed, then the careful student will reject entirely Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower translation." 23
These authors claim that the New World Translation lacks scholarship, and, in fact, reflects scholastic dishonesty.
Anthony Hoekema:
"Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself." 24
Dr. Hoekema was Professor of Systematic Theology, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, U.S.A., and the author of one of the most highly regarded reference works on the Jehovah's Witnesses.
F. F. Bruce: (Dr. Bruce is Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis Emeritus, University of Manchester, England. He is a world renowned Biblical exegete who has issued his own translation of the the New Testament, and a number of scholarly works on New Testament themes. The Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted him as an authority on the New Testament on a number of occasions.)
"Some of its distinctive renderings reflect the Biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah's Witnesses....Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good..." 25
Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, one of the world's leading authorities on the Greek language, and recognized as such by the Jehovah's Witnesses who quote him on occasion in a favorable way, wrote an article in 1950 pointing out the errors in many Christological passages in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. 26
H. H. Rowley, an eminent Old Testament scholar from England, wrote regarding the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures. His comments should be compared to those of Dr. Goodspeed quoted earlier:
"The translation is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate any intelligent reader -if such it finds -and instead of showing reverence for the Bible which the trans lators profess, it is an insult to the Word of God.... "...this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." 27
The comments quoted above are but a sample of the many that have been written over the years. Many more are available in reference to specific details of the translation, especially the translation "...and the Word was a god." which appears in John 1:1c in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Space precludes their inclusion in this paper. http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/publications/the-new-world-translation-and-its-critics.html
hope this helps !!!
In regards to the JW's poor translation known as the New World Translation (NWT) keep in mind the translation committee for the NWT was made up of individuals unqualified to do translations. Here is the list with their backgrounds included:
Frederick W. Franz: Head of the translation committee and chief "translator." Took liberal arts sequence at University of Cincinnati; 21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin. Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year; course titled "The New Testament--A course in grammar and translation." Left in spring of 1914 before completing junior year. Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Entered Brooklyn headquarters facility of Watchtower Society in 1920. Probable ghost writer for J. F. Rutherford (2nd president of WTS) from late 1920s through 1942. Vice president of WTS from 1942 to 1977, president from 1977 until death in 1992 at age 99.
Franz writes in his autobiography: "What a blessing it was to study Bible Greek under Professor Arthur Kensella! Under Dr. Joseph Harry, an author of some Greek works, I also studied the classical Greek. I knew that if I wanted to become a Presbyterian clergyman, I had to have a command of Bible Greek. So I furiously applied myself and got passing grades" (The Watchtower, May 1, 1987, p. 24). Franz gives the impression that the bulk of his Greek studies were "Bible Greek" under "Professor Kensella" and that classical Greek was secondary under "Dr. Joseph Harry." The opposite is true. As mentioned above, Franz only took one 2-hour credit class of "Bible Greek" but 21 hours of classical Greek. According to the course catalog of 1911, Arthur Kensella was not a professor of Greek, as Franz wrote, but an "instructor in Greek." Kensella did not have a Ph.D. and he therefore taught entry-level courses.
Nathan H. Knorr
No training in biblical languages. Entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1923; 3rd president of WTS from 1942 to 1977. Died 1977 at age 72.
Milton G. Henschel
No training in biblical languages. Private secretary and traveling companion to N. H. Knorr from late 1940s until early 1970s. 4th president of WTS from 1992 to 2000. Died 2003 at age 82.
Albert D. Schroeder
No training in biblical languages. Took 3 years of mechanical engineering, unspecified language courses in college, dropped out in 1932 and soon entered Brooklyn headquarters. Registrar of "GileadSchool" from 1942 to 1959. Died 2006 at age 95.
Karl Klein
No training in biblical languages. Entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1925; member of Writing Dept. since 1950. Died 2001 at age 96.
George D. Gangas
No training in biblical languages. Greek-speaking Turkish national, entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1928 as a Greek translator from English to modern Greek publications. Died 1994 at age 98.
Franz was the only man capable of doing translation work. Gangas was a native Greek speaker, knew little of Koine Greek, and apparently helped out with a variety of non-translation tasks including reviewing the English grammar for continuity of expression. From all information published about him personally, one readily concludes that Knorr was the business administrator for the Translation Committee. Henschel might have been on it to take care of legal/secretarial matters. Schroeder and Klein did the copious footnotes (which included textual sources) and cross references and marginal notes, which in the original six volumes of the NWT were more extensive than in the 1984 edition.
[Source: Freeminds and various others]
Here is a Letter that Mantey wrote to the WTBS when they deliberately misquoted him trying to support their false translation
July 11, 1974
Dear Sirs:
I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.
(1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1.
A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity.
B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language.
C. You quotation from p. 148 (3) was a paragraph under the heading: "With the subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied ;in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article, theos signifies divine essence...'theos en ho logos' emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in you letter to Caris.
(2) Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.
(3) Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article."
(4) Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god." Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.
(5) Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58, the addition of "for all time" in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament support is. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes kriseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as the "creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived a human body on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am, (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil 2:6-8. When Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) - "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord."
These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. (Ps. 23:6 and Heb 1:10)
The above are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of God's Word.
In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.
Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule."
On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved - no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher."
If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it.
If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences.
Regretfully yours,
Julius R. Mantey
Dr. Martin: I don’t know whether you’re aware of it, but there is not a single Greek scholar in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn’t tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were, and the men on that committee could not read New Testament Greek; nor could they read Hebrew; nor did they have any knowledge of systematic theology — except what they had learned from the Watchtower. Only one of them had been to college, and he had dropped out after a year. He briefly studied the biblical languages while there.
Dr. Mantey: He was born in Greece, wasn’t he?
Dr. Martin: Yes, he read modern Greek, and I met him when I visited the Watchtower. I asked him to read John 1:1 in the Greek and then said, “How would you translate it?” He said: “Well, ‘the word was a god.”’ I said: “What is the subject of the sentence?” He just looked at me. So I repeated. “What is the subject of the sentence?” He didn’t know. This was the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek and he didn’t know the subject of the sentence in John 1:1. And these were the people who wrote back to you and said their opinion was as good as yours.
Dr. Martin: Often we find JW publications quoting scholars. Do they quote these people in context?
Dr. Mantey: No. They use this device to fool people into thinking that scholars agree with the JWs. Out of all the Greek professors, grammarians, and commentators they have quoted, only one (a Unitarian) agreed that ‘The word was a god.”
Dr. Martin: You have been quoted as saying that the translators of the NWT are “diabolical deceivers.”
Dr. Mantey: Yes. The translation is deceptive, and I believe it’s a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!
Dr. Martin: What would you say to a JW who was looking for the truth?
Dr. Mantey: I would advise him to get a translation other than the NWT, because ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the JWs. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the JWs and end up in hell.
What do the critics have to say about the New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures?
Edmund C. Gruss, Professor of History and Apologetics at Los Angeles Baptist College, offers five main criticisms of the book: 20 a) The use of paraphrasing in contradiction to the stated purpose. b) The unwarranted insertion of words not found in the Greek. Alexander Thomson makes a similar comment in a statement quoted earlier. c) Erroneous rendering of Greek words. d) Deceptive and misleading footnotes and appendix. e) Arbitrary use and misuse of capitals when dealing with the divine name. (For details of criticisms see footnote 20.) Gruss concludes that the New World Translation Of The Christian Greek Scriptures, "although outwardly scholarly, is plainly in many cases, just the opposite. Its purpose is to bring the errors of the Witnesses into the Word of God. This translation carries no authority except to its originators and their faithful followers, and should be rejected as a perversion of the Word of God." 21
Ray C. Stedman (internationally known author, Bible teacher, pastor, evangelist)
"A close examination, which gets beneath the outward veneer of scholarship, reveals a veritable shambles of bigotry, prejudice, and bias which violates every rule of Biblical criticism and every standard of scholarly integrity." 22
Walter Martin and Norman Klann (The late Dr. Martin was a leading Christian apologist, known internationally for his studies of the Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups.)
"Once it is perceived that Jehovah's Witnesses are only interested in what they can make the scriptures say, and not in what the Holy Spirit has already perfectly revealed, then the careful student will reject entirely Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower translation." 23
These authors claim that the New World Translation lacks scholarship, and, in fact, reflects scholastic dishonesty.
Anthony Hoekema:
"Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself." 24
Dr. Hoekema was Professor of Systematic Theology, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, U.S.A., and the author of one of the most highly regarded reference works on the Jehovah's Witnesses.
F. F. Bruce: (Dr. Bruce is Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis Emeritus, University of Manchester, England. He is a world renowned Biblical exegete who has issued his own translation of the the New Testament, and a number of scholarly works on New Testament themes. The Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted him as an authority on the New Testament on a number of occasions.)
"Some of its distinctive renderings reflect the Biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah's Witnesses....Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good..." 25
Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, one of the world's leading authorities on the Greek language, and recognized as such by the Jehovah's Witnesses who quote him on occasion in a favorable way, wrote an article in 1950 pointing out the errors in many Christological passages in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. 26
H. H. Rowley, an eminent Old Testament scholar from England, wrote regarding the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures. His comments should be compared to those of Dr. Goodspeed quoted earlier:
"The translation is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate any intelligent reader -if such it finds -and instead of showing reverence for the Bible which the trans lators profess, it is an insult to the Word of God.... "...this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." 27
The comments quoted above are but a sample of the many that have been written over the years. Many more are available in reference to specific details of the translation, especially the translation "...and the Word was a god." which appears in John 1:1c in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Space precludes their inclusion in this paper. http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/publications/the-new-world-translation-and-its-critics.html
hope this helps !!!
I know 100% the JW,s have Jesus leading them.
The true God is called Theos in many NT spots when spoken of alone as God. But in a paragraph where 2 beings are called God or god 2 different Greek words were used=fact.
Johann
Well-known member
TibiasDad
Well-known member
A false Jesus, and another gospel! You have proven they are leading you into error by the arguments that you are making and yet cannot demonstrate them from scripture.
You have, however, demonstrated your complete ignorance and inability to comprehend the Greek language of the NT to your own embarrassment and demise.
No academically credible scholar can teach what your organization espouses and maintain their integrity, and @civic has demonstrated ad nauseum what real Greek scholars have stated about the Watchtower’s ineptitude in the translation of the Greek NT.
I do not mean to belittle you personally, but rather seek to sincerely warn you as to the things you have been taught. The Watchtower does not want you to study independently of their propaganda instructions, because they have found that people realize that the Orthodox position of Christology is the correct interpretation.
Doug
Last edited:
