| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"James" |
| Date: |
31 Jul 2007 12:57:06 PM |
| Object: |
John 1:1 |
"Perico de los Palotes" <ppalotes2004@yahoo.com>
Hi, all
A Jehova Witness friend told me that one justification Jesus not being God,
but created by God, is in John 1 (in principio erat verbum... ). She says
that Deum and Deus are different words. I believe they are latin
declensions of the same word. Can anybody give me the quick details on
this?
Thanks in advance,
Hello,
The best source to study John 1:1 would be in the language of the
original writing, Greek, instead of a translation from that writing.
(such as Latin)
Concerning the Greek grammar found at John 1:1, that passage contains
the word "god" [theos] twice. The first time it has the definite
article "the" before it, the second time it does not. Thus there is a
difference between the meaning of the first "god" [theos] and the
second "god" [theos]. And a good translation should show that
difference.
According to the Bible translator William Barclay, he says that when a
Greek noun doesn't have the definite article in front of it, it
becomes a description (like an adjective) rather than an identity
(like a noun). And the second "theos" [god] has no definite article
preceding it. That is why some Bible translations render it this way:
"the Logos was divine." (MO);
"the Word was divine." (AT; SD);
"a god was the Word." (interlinear ED) ;
"the Word was a god" (NTIV).
"the Word was a god." (NWT)
"The Word was deity." (Simple English)
And the apostle John, the writer of vs 1 here, near the end of his
book at John 20:31, mentions the final concluding comment about Jesus'
position as to God. He said that Jesus was the "Son of God". (not 'God
the Son', nor 'God' etc)
Thus to ACCURATELY get across what the writer of Joh 1:1 was saying,
is to show that the "Word" [Jesus] was with Almighty God in the
beginning, and that the "Word" was also like a god, or godlike. Even
Satan is called a "god" at 2 Co 4:4, how much more so would Jesus be
called a "god".
So that is how the Greek manuscripts read in that passage, and that is
how an honest and accurate translator should translate it for his
readers.
Sincerely, James
**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads
***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: John 1:1 |
31 Jul 2007 01:12:47 PM |
|
|
Actually it has been shown time and time again that the way the NWT
translates John 1:1 violates elementary Koine Greek grammar rules. The
fact is that no reputable Greek scholar supports the NWT translation
of John 1:1. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has to use
dishonest tactics like misquoting reputable Greek scholars in order to
make it appear that they support and concur with the NWT's translation
of John 1:1 however it has been documented that when taken in context
and quoted accurately, it becomes clear that the scholars they
misquote actually do NOT support the NWT translation of John 1:1. I've
already had one JW try to pull that tactic by cutting-and-pasting the
WTBTS publications with the misrepresentations and I took the time and
effort to show the COMPLETE and IN-CONTEXT quotes showing the WTBTS's
dishonesty on the matter. Furthermore, none of the members of the WT
translation committee were qualified Greek or Hebrew scholars.
The NWT's mistranslation of John 1:1 has already been thoroughly
refuted by Bible scholars and rather than go into a lengthy typing
session, I will offer an article by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John
Weldon that shows the NWT to be a poor translation in regards to John
1:1 specifically as well as overall. There are many more articles I
can provide showing in detail and exposing the NWT's mistranslation of
John 1:1.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1
Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon
In John 1:1, the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses
inserts the word "a" in an attempt to deny Christ's deity: "In (the)
beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
a god." (New World Translation [NWT])
The same verse in the New American Standard Version reads this way:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God."
The transliterated Greek of this verse looks like this:
En arche en ho logos kai ho logos
In beginning was the Word and the word
en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos
was toward the God and God was the Word
In essence, the Watchtower Society claims it can translate theos as "a
god" because there is no definite article before this usage of theos
(God) in the last clause of John 1:1. Note that the first use of the
term God (pros ton theon) has the article (ton-the). The second use
simply states kai theos ("and God," not "and the God"). Because it
does not say "and the God" Jehovah's Witnesses argue they are free to
interpret this second usage of God as figuratively meaning a lesser
deity, "a god"-signifying Christ's exalted status, even though he is
still only a creature. Their main concern here is to escape the clear
meaning of this passage. Christ is here called theos, God.
The difficulty is that, had the apostle John used the article, he
would have declared that "the God was the Word." Had he done so, he
would have confused the persons of the Trinity and supported modalism
(in the early church known as the heresy of Sabellianism1). In other
words, to declare that "the God was the word [Jesus]" would have
stated that all of God-i.e., the whole trinity-was Jesus. This would
have supported modalistic belief that there is only one Person in the
Godhead (i.e., Jesus) and that the terms Father, Son and Spirit in
Scripture only refer to modes or offices of the one God who exists as
one person.
The apostle John had to make a finer distinction and, on the one hand,
clearly declare that the person of Jesus was deity, but, on the other,
not make it seem as if all three persons in the Godhead were to be
considered the same as the person of Jesus. To make this fine
distinction he had to use the exact wording he used.
We should also note that the Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Interlinear
(p. 1158-1159) utilizes both Julius Mantey's Manual Grammer and A. T.
Robertson's Grammar in defense of their John 1:1 translation. However,
Mantey observes:
Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation,
I am making this statement... of all the scholars in the world, as far
as we know none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have
done. If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John
1:1, the implication would be that they are one and the same person,
absolutely identical. But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the)
God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing, he
indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate
personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of
the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in
other words, that both are of the same nature, and that nature is the
highest in existence, namely divine.... The apostle John, in the context
of the introduction to his Gospel, is pulling all the stops out of
language to portray not only the deity of Christ, but also his
equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the
beginning, that He was with God, that He was God and that all creation
came into existence through him and that not even one thing exists
that was not created by Christ. What else could be said that John did
not say?2
As for Dr. Robertson, they misstate his own position by selectively
quoting him. As they observe, Robertson does say that, "the absence of
the article here is on purpose." But Jehovah's Witnesses do not
explain why he says this. He does so to indicate that to include the
article "would have been Sabellianism."3 In his Word Pictures,
Robertson provides a succinct analysis:
By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying
ho theos enho logos (The God was the Word). That would mean that all
of God was expressed in ho logos (the Word) and the terms would be
interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by
the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in
John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit
is God." So in I John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean "God is
love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would
confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson,
Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, "the Word
became flesh," not "the flesh became Word."4
The Watchtower Society appendix defending the "a god" rendering
(Kingdom Interlinear, p. 1158-1160) again appears scholarly, but is
not. For example, they misquote Dana and Mantey's Grammar.5 In a
letter to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society dated July 11, 1974,
Mantey even demanded a public apology for these repeated misquotings-
as well as requested their discontinuance of the use of his grammar:
After citing numerous examples of mistranslations, Mantey writes:
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.... 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 photocopy of
it. If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the
consequences.
Regretfully yours,
Julius R. Mantey6
Michael Van Buskirk has also documented Watchtower deception in detail
in his Scholastic Dishonesty of the Watchtower noting they also
misquote A. T. Robertson's Grammar and other sources as well. They
further claim, "At Acts 28:6 we have a case paralleling that of John
1:1 with exactly the same predicate construction, namely, with an
anarthrous [i.e., no definite article] OEOS [theos]" (The Kingdom
Interlinear, p. 1160). This at first seems to be true for there is no
definite article in Acts 28:6. What the Witnesses fail to mention is
that in John 1:1 the predicate nominative (theos) precedes the verb;
here in Acts it follows the verb and thus is not applicable. Colwell's
Rule (which is at issue here) states that a definite predicate
nominative has the article when it follows the verb and lacks the
article when it precedes it:
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. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek
grammar which necessitates the rendering, "...and the Word was God."
Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago
pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, "A definite
predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does
not have the article when it precedes the verb." ...In a lengthy
Appendix in the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation, which was added to
support the mistranslation of John 1:1, there are quoted thirty-five
other passages in John where the predicate noun has the definite
article in Greek. These are intended to prove that the absence of the
article in John 1:1 requires that OEOS [theos] must be translated "a
god." None of the thirty-five instances is parallel, however, for in
every case the predicate noun stands after the verb, and so, according
to Colwell's rule, properly has the article. So far, therefore, from
being evidence against the usual translation of John 1:1, these
instances add confirmation to the full enunciation of the rule of the
Greek definite article. Furthermore, the additional references quoted
in the New World Translation from the Greek of the Septuagint
translation of the Old Testament, in order to give further support to
the erroneous rendering in the opening verse of John, are exactly in
conformity with Colwell's rule, and therefore are added proof of the
accuracy of the rule. The other passages adduced in the Appendix are,
for one reason or another, not applicable to the question at issue.
(Particularly inappropriate is the reference to Acts 28:6, for no one
has ever maintained that the pagan natives of Malta regarded Paul as
anything other than "a god.")7
Van Buskirk points out that the Witnesses have attempted to deny
Colwell's Rule by quoting Phillip B. Harner's article in Journal of
Biblical Literature, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark
15:39 and John 1:1" (Vol. 92, 1973, p. 87). However, a full year
earlier Dr. Mantey's own letter to the Watchtower Society demanding
they stop misquoting him pointed out that not only had they misquoted
Colwell's Rule but that it is impossible to quote Harner in denial of
Colwell since Harner himself supports the rule and denies the
possibility of an "a god" translation. Van Buskirk observes:
One's mind staggers at the depths to which someone will sink to prove
his point. In the Watchtower's case both Colwell and Harner show that
in John 1:1 "a god" is not a permissible translation. Yet without
blinking an eye they will quote, out of context, the man who refutes
them. Harner's article in no way concludes what the Watchtower makes
it conclude in their letter.8
Van Buskirk goes on to discuss exactly what Harner concluded and how
his research is complementary to Colwell's; it simply brings out new
information.
Nevertheless, even if we were to assume the truth of what the
Watchtower Society claims in their appendix, they have violated their
own "rule" in John 1:1 94% of the time. Robert H. Countess, writing in
The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament, documents this in detail.9 In
John 1 alone they violate their principle at least five times.
Checking their interlinear (pp. 417-419) we see the following:
=B7 John 1:6 para theou-no definite article
=B7 John 1:12 tekna theou-no definite article
=B7 John 1:13 ek theou-no definite article
=B7 John 1:18 Theon-no definite article
=B7 John 1:23 odon Kuriou-no definite article
If the absence of the article demands the "a god" rendering, why is it
not so rendered here? In fact, where is it in 94% of the instances of
such construction in the NWT? Clearly translating John 1:1 "a god" is
not only a violation of Greek grammar, it is unjustified even in light
of the vast majority of their own translation. Obviously then, in John
1:1 (NWT), the translation should be "God," not "a god."
(As an aside, the NWT at John 1:23 translates the Greek kurios (Lord)
as "Jehovah," since it is a clear reference to Jehovah God from
Isaiah. Yet, according to their John 1:1 rendering, with no definite
article it should be "a Jehovah." If "a god" must be different from
God, "a Jehovah" must then be different from Jehovah. At this point we
would have three Gods: "Jehovah," "a god" and "a Jehovah.")
Notes
1 Sabellianism: "A version of Monarchianism holding that the Godhead
was differentiated only into a succession of modes or operations..." The
American Heritage Dictionary.
2 Julius Mantey, Depth Exploration in the New Testament (NY: Vantage
Press, 1980), pp. 138-39.
3 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville,
TN: Broadman Press, 1934), pp. 767-68.
4 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 5
(Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1930), pp. 4-5.
5 Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Toronto, Canada: MacMillian, 1957).
6 Quoted in our The Facts On Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 48.
7 Bruce Metzger, "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," rpt. of
April 1953, Theology Today (Princeton, NJ: Theological Book Agency,
1953), pp. 75-76.
8 Michael Van Buskirk, The Scholastic Dishonesty of the Watchtower
(Santa Ana, CA: Christian Apologetics and Research Information
Service, 1976), p. 16.
9 Robert Countess, The Jehovah's Witness New Testament (Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1983), Chapter 4, pp. 54-55; Appendix
Table 5.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: John 1:1 |
31 Jul 2007 01:40:40 PM |
|
|
Here's another exellent article exposing the NWT mistranslation of
John 1:1 and why it is a very erroneous mistranslation from expert
Walter Martin.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
John 1:1 And The New World Translation Mistranslation
by Dr. Walter Martin
John 1:1. "In the beginning [or "origin," Greek, ] was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God ."
Contrary to the translations of The Emphatic Diaglott and the
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Greek grammatical
construction leaves no doubt whatsoever that this is the only possible
rendering of the text. The subject of the sentence is Word , the verb
was. There can be no direct object following "was" since according to
grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead
predicate nominatives, which refer back to the subject-in this case,
Word . In fact, the late New Testament Greek scholar Dr. E. C. Colwell
formulated a rule that clearly states that a definite predicate
nominative (in this case, -God) never takes an article when it
precedes the verb (was), as we find in John 1:1. It is therefore easy
to see that no article is needed for (God), and to translate it "a
god" is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek since is the predicate
nominative of was in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must
refer back to the subject, Word . Christ, if He is the Word "made
flesh" (John 1:14), can be no one else except God unless the Greek
text and consequently God's Word be denied.
Jehovah's Witnesses, in an appendix in their New World
Translation (pp. 773-777), attempt to discredit the proper translation
on this point, for they realize that if Jesus and Jehovah are "One" in
nature, their theology cannot stand since they deny that unity of
nature. The refutation of their arguments on this point is conclusive.
The claim is that since the definite article is used with in
John 1:1b and not with in John 1:1c, therefore the omission is
designed to show a difference; the alleged difference being that in
the first case the one true God (Jehovah) is meant, while in the
second "a god," other than and inferior to the first, is meant, this
latter "god" being Jesus Christ.
On page 776 the claim is made that the rendering "a god" is
correct because "all the doctrine of sacred Scriptures bears out the
correctness of this rendering." This remark focuses attention on the
fact that the whole problem involved goes far beyond this text.
Scripture does in fact teach the full and equal deity of Christ. Why
then is so much made of this one verse? It is probably because of the
surprise effect derived from the show of pseudo-scholarship in the use
of a familiar text. Omission of the definite article with does not
mean that "a god" other than the one true God is meant. Let one
examine these passages where the definite article is not used with and
see if the rendering "a god" makes sense: Matthew 3:9; 6:24; Luke
1:35, 78; 2:40; John 1:6, 12-13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Romans 1:7, 17-
18; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 15:10; Philippians 2:11-13; Titus 1:1, and
many, many more. The "a god" contention proves too weak and is
inconsistent. To be consistent in this rendering of "a god," Jehovah's
Witnesses would have to translate every instance where the article is
absent as "a god" (nominative), "of a god" (genitive), "to" or "for a
god" (dative), etc. This they do not do in Matthew 3:9; 6:24; Luke
1:35, 78; John 1:6, 12-13, 18; Romans 1:7, 17, etc.
You cannot honestly render "a god" in John 1:1, and then render
"of God" (Jehovah) in Matthew 3:9, Luke 1:35, 78; John 1:6, etc., when
is the genitive case of the same noun (second declension), without an
article and must be rendered (following Jehovah's Witnesses' argument)
"of a god" not "of God" as both The Emphatic Diaglott and New World
Translation put it. We could list at great length, but suggest
consultation of the Greek New Testament by either D. Erwin Nestle or
Westcott and Hort, in conjunction with The Elements of Greek by
Francis Kingsley Ball on noun endings, etc. Then if Jehovah's
Witnesses must persist in this fallacious "a god" rendition, they can
at least be consistent, which they are not, and render every instance
where the article is absent in the same manner. The truth of the
matter is that Jehovah's Witnesses use and remove the articular
emphasis whenever and wherever it suits their fancy, regardless of
grammatical laws to the contrary. In a translation as important as
God's Word, every law must be observed. Jehovah's Witnesses have not
been consistent in their observances of those laws.
The writers of the claim have exhibited another trait common to
Jehovah's Witnesses-that of half-quoting or misquoting a recognized
authority to bolster their ungrammatical renditions. On page 776 in an
appendix to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures, when quoting Dr. A. T. Robertson's words, "Among the
ancient writers was used of the god of absolute religion in
distinction from the mythological gods," they fail to note that in the
second sentence following, Dr. Robertson says, "In the New Testament,
however, while we have (John 1:1-2) it is far more common to find
simply , especially in the Epistles."
In other words, the writers of the New Testament frequently do
not use the article with , and yet the meaning is perfectly clear in
the context, namely that the one true God is intended. Let one examine
the following references where in successive verses (and even in the
same sentence) the article is used with one occurrence of and not with
another form, and it will be absolutely clear that no such drastic
inferences can be drawn from John's usage in John 1:1-2 (Matthew 4:3-
4; 12:28; Luke 20:37-38; John 3:2; 13:3; Acts 5:29-30; Romans 1:7-8,
17-19; 2:16-17; 3:5; 4:2-3, etc.).
The doctrine of the article is important in Greek; it is not
used indiscriminately. But we are not qualified to be sure in all
cases what is intended. Dr. Robertson is careful to note that "it is
only of recent years that a really scientific study of the article has
been made." The facts are not all known, and no such drastic
conclusion, as the writers of the appendix note, should be
dogmatically affirmed.
It is nonsense to say that a simple noun can be rendered
"divine," and yet, at the same time, that same noun without the
article conveys merely the idea of quality. The authors of this note
later render the same noun as "a god," not as "a quality." This is a
self-contradiction in the context.
In conclusion, the position of the writers of this note is made
clear in an appendix to the New World Translation of the Christian
Greek Scriptures (p. 774); according to them it is "unreasonable" that
the Word (Christ) should be the God with whom He was (John 1:1). Their
own manifestly erring reason is made the criterion for determining
scriptural truth. One need only note the obvious misuse in their
quotation from Dana and Mantey (pp. 774-775). Mantey clearly means
that the "Word was deity" in accord with the overwhelming testimony of
Scripture, but the writers have dragged in the interpretation "a god"
to suit their own purpose, which purpose is the denial of Christ's
deity, and as a result a denial of the Word of God. The late Dr.
Mantey publicly stated that he was quoted out of context, and he
personally wrote the Watchtower, declaring, "There is no statement in
our grammar that was ever meant to imply that 'a god' was a
permissible translation in John 1:1" and "It is neither scholarly nor
reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.' "
Over the decades the Watchtower and independently minded
Jehovah's Witnesses have struggled without success to refute the above
presentation regarding the Greek of John 1:1. Their convoluted
argumentation is nowhere more evident than in their Should You Believe
in the Trinity? booklet. Contemporary Witnesses use the contentions
from this booklet to argue that John 1:1 should be translated as the
New World Translation does: "The word was a god." However, none of
these polemics have any more scholarly merit than the earlier
arguments we refuted.
For example, the booklet claims, "Someone who is 'with' another
person cannot be the same as that other person" (p. 27). This is a
complete misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is,
simply stated, that within the nature of the one true God there are
three eternal, distinct persons-the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit. When we say that Jesus is God, we do not mean that the Son is
the same person as the Father. That would be in accord with another
ancient church heresy known as modalism. John 1:1 commits no logical
blunders when it states that the Word (the second person) is with God
(the first person) and is himself God.
The sources referred to and quoted in Should You Believe in the
Trinity? can be summarized in three categories: liberals who do not
believe that the Bible is God's Word or that Jesus Christ was anything
more than an inspired human; out-dated materials that fail to engage
with up-to-date, comprehensive scholarship; and sources used out of
context or misinterpreted. A number of valuable critiques of the
Watchtower arguments concerning John 1:1 are currently in print.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: John 1:1 |
31 Jul 2007 01:47:07 PM |
|
|
Robert Bowman, who is recognized as an authority on the Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society explains why the NWT is such a untrustworthy
translation and exposes the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's
disingenuousness concerning it. This is just one part of a four-part
series. There is more from Mr. Bowman but for purposes of this thread,
the information proves the WTBTS's dishonesty.
May God bless,
Carl
my website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
The New World Translation On Trial
Part Two in a Four-part Series on JWs and the Bible
by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
from the Christian Research Journal, Fall, 1989, page 28. The Editor-
in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.
The New World Translation (NWT)[1] is the official translation of the
Bible published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and used by
all Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs). It has often been criticized for its
biased renderings of crucial texts traditionally used by Christians to
support the deity of Christ. Although study of such isolated
mistranslations in the NWT is valuable, it can give the mistaken
impression that the NWT is an otherwise acceptable translation with
only a handful of verses in dispute. This is not the case, however.
As I explained in Part One, the purpose of this four-part series is to
show that the JWs systematically distort the Bible to make it fit
their preconceived beliefs.[2] In the present article I will argue
that the NWT itself reflects this systematic distortion in a vast
number of texts relating to practically every area of biblical
doctrine.
Space does not permit a discussion of who the translators were, what
scholarly training they brought to their work, or what opinions non-JW
scholars have expressed about the NWT. Another restriction for the
sake of space is that the scope of this article will be confined to
the New Testament, or "Christian Greek Scriptures," as JWs call it.
I should also clarify at the outset what it means to charge a
translation with doctrinal bias. While all translations reflect their
translator's doctrinal convictions to a certain extent, some
translations are extremely biased to the point of severely distorting
the meaning of the Bible. And so, though it is true that all
translations reflect some biases, these are in most cases
inconsequential compared to the bias of the NWT.
In this article there will be no extended discussion of individual
texts. Instead, brief comments will be made concerning a large number
of biblical passages. In most cases the reader can verify what is said
by simply consulting the JWs' own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of
the Greek Scriptures (KIT). The KIT prints the 1984 edition of the NWT
New Testament on the right side of the page. On the left side is the
Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881 with the Society's own 1969 word-for-
word interlinear translation printed underneath the Greek words.[3]
The editors of the KIT explain the purpose of the volume: "The word-
for-word interlinear translation and the New World Translation are
arranged in parallel on the page, so that comparisons can be made
between the two readings. Thus, the accuracy of any modern translation
can be determined."[4]
There are several types of mistranslations in the NWT. This article
will draw attention only to some of the most common and unfortunate.
ADDING WORDS
In Colossians 1:16-20 the word "other" is added four times in the NWT
to make it appear that Christ is part of creation. Paul is thus made
to say that "all [other] things" were created in and for Christ, as if
Christ were one of the created things. It is, of course, legitimate
for translators to add the word "other" where this does not change the
meaning but simply makes for smoother English (e.g., Luke 11:41-42;
13:2,4). In Colossians 1:16-20, however, adding "other" substantially
changes the meaning.
What is not so often recognized is that the NWT does this same thing
in several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Romans 8:32; Phil.
2:9). In Romans 8:32 ("....will he not also with him [Jesus] kindly
give us all other things?"), the word "other" is not even placed in
brackets, contrary to the work's stated practice.[5] In each case, the
intent is apparently to undermine the implication of the text that
Jesus Christ is God.
There are several other texts where the NWT adds words without
brackets which change the texts' meaning. Some of these have real
doctrinal significance. In Romans 8:28 "all things" is changed to "all
his works." This implies that God does not work "all things" together
for good to those who love God, but only those things which He Himself
does, over which He therefore has control. This allows for their
belief that God does not have control over all things.
In Philippians 1:23-24 (NWT) several words are added without brackets
that, along with some other changes, completely alter the structure
and thereby the meaning of the text. The passage reads in the NWT
(with the added words italicized), "I am under pressure from these two
things; but what I do desire is the releasing and the being with
Christ, for this, to be sure, is far better." There are other errors
as well, but the additions indicated here clearly change the meaning.
JWs translate it this way in order to avoid the text's implication
that at death Paul would be with Christ. Such an implication would
contradict their belief that death involves the annihilation of the
soul.
Some of the additions in brackets with the NWT so clearly change the
meaning that it is a wonder that more JWs do not question them. In 1
Corinthians 14:12-16 the expression "gift of the" is added in brackets
five times, changing "spirit" to "[gift of the] spirit." The result is
that Paul's contrast between his own personal "spirit" and his "mind"
is removed, which again serves the JW doctrine that the spirit is not
a distinct entity which survives death. To assure that this contrast
is missed, the word "my" is also added in brackets before "mind" twice
in verse 15. Thus the simple contrast between "the spirit" and "the
mind" is changed to "the [gift of the] spirit" and "[my] mind."
OMITTING WORDS
The NWT also omits key words on occasion, when retaining them in the
text would seem to contradict JW doctrine. The most glaring example is
Romans 8:1, "Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no
condemnation," which omits the word "now." This omission is evidently
motivated by the fact that JWs do not believe anyone can claim to be
free of condemnation now.
Also notable is the NWT rendering of Colossians 1:19, "because [God]
saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." Here the little word "the"
is omitted before "fullness." This is significant, because in the NWT
rendering "all fullness" is ambiguous, whereas "all the fullness"
clearly refers to the "fullness" of God's own being (cf. Col. 2:9).
John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads, "If YOU
ask anything in my name, I will do it." The Greek text in the KIT,
however, has "me" after "ask." It therefore 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
(including those used by the JWs in producing the NWT) include it. At
the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this reading in a
note.
CHANGING WORDS
The NWT is further guilty of mistranslating or paraphrasing words in a
way which not only does a disservice to the text but betrays its
prevailing doctrinal bias as well. It does this with words as small as
prepositions.
Of course, it is possible to make too much of prepositions. Words like
"in," "of," "into," and "with" really do not in and of themselves have
doctrinal significance. Only as these words are attached to other
words do they take on significance. It is also important to recognize
that a preposition can have different meanings in different contexts.
Yet -- though this is true -- prepositions do have recognizable
functions and meanings and cannot be translated in whatever manner one
chooses.
In violation of this, the NWT translates the simple preposition
"in" (Greek, en) with unnecessary variations which often obscure or
alter the meaning of the passage. This is illustrated in 1 John 5:20
where the NWT reads in part, "And we are in union with the true one,
by means of 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. There is no sound reason for this variation.
"And we are in union with the true one, in union with his Son Jesus
Christ," would have brought out John's point that union with Christ is
union with God.
Again, in Colossians 2:6-12 the preposition "in" is translated by the
NWT using unnecessary variations. The Greek phrase en auto ("in him")
is translated "in union with him" (v. 6b), "in him" (vv. 7a,9), and
"by means of him" (v. 10). En ho ("in whom") is translated "by
relationship with him" (vv. 11a,12a). These variations of "in" serve
no useful purpose, undermine the unity of the passage, and obscure the
point of the author which is that the Christian life consists of a
supernatural relationship with Christ through faith.
There are many other passages where "in" is paraphrased in the NWT to
avoid the otherwise clear meaning of the text. For example, in Matthew
5:19 "in" is translated "in relation to." This is done to avoid the
passage's teaching that some who disobey the Law's commandments and
teach others to do so will nevertheless be accepted "in the kingdom of
heaven." (JWs believe the Kingdom will be restricted to 144,000
specially chosen and sanctified believers).
Another kind of mistranslation involves the word "believe." One of the
most offensive teachings of evangelical Christianity to the JWs (and
to many others as well) is that God reckons the sinner righteous on
the basis of simple faith, or believing, in Christ. Of course, where
"faith" or "belief" is reduced to mental assent to a doctrine, this is
rightly rejected. But biblical justification is based on faith in
Christ not faith in a doctrine. Nonetheless, even when this teaching
is properly defined it is offensive to the JWs, as is evidenced by
their attempt to obscure this truth in the NWT.
Most notable in this regard is the NWT rendering of the Greek word for
"believe" (pisteuo) as "exercise faith" instead of "believe." As
others have noted, to "exercise faith" implies more than to believe;
it implies doing works on the basis of one's belief. The NWT almost
always renders pisteuo as "exercise faith" when it concerns God's free
pardon and justification of those who believe in Christ (e.g., John
1:12; 3:16-18 [but note v. 15]; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:22).
It was noted earlier that in 1 Corinthians 14:12-16 the phrase "gift
of the" is added in brackets five times, changing "spirit" to "[gift
of the] spirit." The NWT elsewhere frequently paraphrases the simple
word "spirit" -- especially when referring to the immaterial aspect of
human nature -- in order to avoid the implication that such a spirit
has a reality distinct from the body. For instance, in Hebrews 12:9
"the Father of spirits" becomes "the Father of our spiritual life." In
Galatians 6:18 "your spirit" is paraphrased "the spirit YOU show."
Similar rewordings are introduced in passages where the simple
translation "spirit" or "Spirit" might imply that God's Spirit is a
person, contrary to their doctrine that "holy spirit" is God's "active
force." So, Jude's description of certain men as "not having the
Spirit" is rendered "not having spirituality" (Jude 19).
Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our
union with God is secure "owing to the spirit which he gave
us" (3:24). The next sentence (4:1) in the NWT reads, "Beloved ones,
believe not every inspired expression, but test the inspired
expressions to see whether they originate with God..." (4:1a; emphases
added). One would never suspect from this rendering that "inspired
expression" translates the same Greek word (pneuma) as was translated
"spirit" in 3:24 (see also 4:2,3,6). John's whole point is that
although the Spirit's presence in us gives us assurance of God's love,
we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims to be from God, but
test them by the teachings which their prophets espouse, "because many
false prophets have gone out into the world" (4:1b). The NWT obscures
this point of God's Word in order to avoid its implication that His
"Spirit" is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic
"spirits" are personal entities and not impersonal forces, as JWs
recognize).
The same doctrinal bias is seen in 1 Timothy 4:1 where the NWT reads,
"However, the inspired utterance says...." A straightforward "the
spirit says" would too obviously imply the personality of the
"spirit."
Finally, the way in which the NWT most systematically distorts the
teaching of Scripture is in its handling of the names and titles used
for God. Two points must be made here.
First and most obvious is the appearance of "Jehovah" over 200 times
in the NWT New Testament where the Greek text has kurios ("Lord").
Other writers have exposed the scholarly errors involved;[6] I will
not repeat their work here. Instead I wish to point out two ways in
which this distorts the teaching of the New Testament.
The New Testament follows the practice of the Septuagint (the Greek
translation of the Old Testament used by most Greek-speaking Jews in
the first century) in substituting the word "Lord" (and occasionally
"God") for the divine name "Yahweh" (or "Jehovah"). By so doing, the
New Testament makes it clear that the use of "Jehovah" is not
necessary for Christians, contrary to the JWs' claim.
Moreover, the substitution of "Jehovah" for "Lord" often obscures the
meaning of passages relating to Jesus Christ. A good example is Romans
10:9-13, where Christ is called "Lord" (kurios) three times,
concluding with verse 13, a quote from the Septuagint where the "Lord"
is Jehovah. The NWT, by rendering kurios in verse 13 as "Jehovah" but
as "Lord" in verses 9 and 12, has obscured the fact that in this
passage Jesus is being identified as Jehovah by the use of the title
"Lord."
The second way the NWT has systematically abused the divine names or
titles is in its handling of texts in which Jesus is called God. There
are nine texts where Jesus is definitely called God (Isa. 9:6; John
1:1,18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20;
possibly also Acts 20:28).[7] Of these, four are translated so that
Jesus is not called God at all (Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet.
1:1). Two are rendered so that he is "a god" or "god" (John 1:1,18).
The remaining three texts (Isa. 9:6; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20) are
interpreted so that either Jesus is not called God at all or he is
called God only in some lesser sense. In short, wherever possible, the
NWT has translated texts which in their natural reading plainly call
Jesus God in such a way that they no longer make that identification.
Only a small sampling of doctrinally-motivated mistranslations in the
NWT have been documented here. We have seen words added, words
omitted, and words and phrases paraphrased improperly with a view
toward transmuting the Bible into JW doctrine. We have seen that these
mistranslations conveniently support the distinctive JW understanding
of the name "Jehovah" and their denials of Christ's deity, the
personhood of the Holy Spirit, the separableness of the human spirit
from the body, spiritual life after the death of the body for
Christians, God's absolute sovereign control over the world, the unity
of God's people, and justification by faith. Were we to extend the
study, we would see that every distinctive of the JWs has
strategically been insinuated into the text of the NWT in a way that
to the non-JW clearly shows doctrinal bias.
One possible criticism of this survey would be that it does not
consider the arguments JWs would advance in defense of their
controversial renderings in the NWT. In reply I must point out that to
address such arguments would necessarily mean limiting the examples of
mistranslation to just a few. But, it is my experience and doubtless
that of many others that no JW will admit that there might be so much
as one doctrinally-slanted verse in the NWT. To defend such a
position, however, they must now satisfactorily explain all of the
examples given here. In any case, the more in-depth treatment a
specific text is given (including evaluation of arguments in its
favor), the more evidence piles up that the JW renderings are wrong
and biased.
In Part Three of this series, a specific passage of the Bible will be
examined in-depth as a case in point. I shall argue that the methods
and presuppositions of biblical interpretation used by the JWs are
seriously flawed and lead them into error.
NOTES
1 The New World Translation of the "Christian Greek Scriptures" was
first published in 1950, with the complete Bible appearing in 1961.
All citations from the NWT are from the New World Translation of the
Holy Scriptures: With References (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1984), hereafter cited as NWT (1984).
2 "Watchtower Authority and the Bible," CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL 11
(Fall 1988):19-21.
3 "By Way of Explanation," in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of
the Greek Scriptures, rev. ed. (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1985), 5.
4 Ibid.
5 NWT (1984), 7.
6 See Robert H. Countess, The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament: A
Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co.,
1982), 19-40, and especially Doug Mason, JEHOVAH in the Jehovah's
Witnesses' New World Translation (n.p.: Doug Mason, 1987; hosted by
Free Minds, Inc., PO Box 3818, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266).
7 On John 1:1 and 20:28, see my Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and
the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989). On Romans
9:5, see Bruce M. Metzger, "The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5," in Christ
and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby
Moule, ed. Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley (Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 95-112.
End of document, CRJ0049A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"The New World Translation On Trial"
release A, March 25, 1994
R. Poll, CRI
A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in the
preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RedFox" |
|
| Title: Re: John 1:1 |
31 Jul 2007 09:31:50 PM |
|
|
If you are so fascinated by the Jaywits - join them
We aren't
Its BORING
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: John 1:1 |
31 Jul 2007 06:55:31 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:12:47 -0700, spoke
thusly:
Actually it has been shown time and time again that the way the NWT
translates John 1:1 violates elementary Koine Greek grammar rules. The
fact is that no reputable Greek scholar supports the NWT translation
of John 1:1.
And there it is! :)
--
Pastor Dave
When making liars happy in their word games takes
precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned.
-unknown
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: John 1:1 |
31 Jul 2007 02:37:23 PM |
|
|
James <bireda@peoplepc.com> wrote in
news:httua39jckahdhtf7m4mkf2lalppt6ads7@4ax.com:
difference between the meaning of the first "god" [theos] and the
What a load of unmitigated CRAP! Just read the next verse. It CLEARLY
states that the Logos is coeternal with God, which makes its divinity the
same as that of God.
Why do you think Jesus told the disciples to baptize in the name of the
Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Why not just in the name of
YHWH (a Hebrew word that you people will NEVER understand because you're
too busy using it in vain).
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
