Talk to a JW: NWT

[Mohrb]

The main discussion thread got too cluttered, so this is my attempt to organize the conversations so they're a little less confusing:

Another topic that very often came up is the validity of one translation over another. For example, Colossians 1:15 uses the word "PasEs" ... most translations render this "over" although the literal translation in any interlinear is "of." The NWT keeps "of" and translates it as showing the son being the firstborn of creation (indicating that Jesus was a part "of" creation). However, most translations interpret it as the firstborn "over" creation, indicating that he is excluded from creation.

Another verse that was briefly discussed, and then lost in the conversation was Hebrews 1:9/Psalms 45:6. "Your throne, O God" vs. "God is your throne" vs. "Your throne is of God"? This is a particularly interesting translation to discuss because the greek version is quoted from the hebrew version (in psalms), therefore we have an interesting context to be discussed.

I'm aware that this site does not recognize the NWT translation's legitimacy, however, the topic does come up from time to time, so I think people may be interested in a conversation regarding WHY some translations are different, rather than simply stating "KJV (or my chosen translation here)=absolute truth, everything else=lie."

 

[Tina]

.

I believe this site explains it all .....


Is the New World Translation (NWT) a valid version of the Bible?

 

[Mohrb]

GotQuestions.org isn't exactly the most unbiased of sources. Yes, it presents it's opinion that "The NWT is different than the KJV, therefore the NWT is wrong." Unfortunately it doesn't present grammatical support as to why the KJV is right in the first place other than the fact that it defines "right" by the KJV.

Circular reasoning isn't that great.

 

[farouk]

You don't have to be King James Only to make a distinction between a translation and a fabrication: by fabrication I mean one where at various pivotal points there is no basis at all in the original for what is presented.

 

[felix]

Two Jehovah Witness ladies came to my home 2 yrs back. I welcomed them and asked to read Isa 9:6 from their own Bible whatever translation they have. They just ran away.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Two Jehovah Witness ladies came to my home 2 yrs back. I welcomed them and asked to read Isa 9:6 from their own Bible whatever translation they have. They just ran away.

Is. 9:6 (from my own personal study, found in full on my sites)

Part one

One way to interpret Is. 9:6 is to recognize that many of the Jewish personal names from this period were simple phrases or clauses which were intended to recognize or praise their God. [1]

Personal names ion the ancient Hebrew are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The modern English translator must fill in the missing minor words such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best fit the probable intended meaning.

For instance, two of the best-known Bible Concordances (Strong's and Young's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many of the Bible's personal names because of those 'minor' words which must be added by the translator to bring out what he believes was the intended meaning.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name Elimelech (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King." But Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King." And Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means "God His King." - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

Those missing 'minor' words the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference. For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in my NIV Study Bible (1985) says, the personal name Abram "means 'Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., [God is the] Exalted Father')." - bracketed words in the original - emphasis mine.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Is. 9:6 (from my personal study)

Part two

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 in the footnote of the following Bible reads:

"And his name is called: Wonderful in Counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace." - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version, Margolis, ed.

This shows that the translators believed the name was intended as a praise of the God of the Messiah.

Also An American Translation (Smith and Goodspeed) says:

"Wonderful Counselor is God Almighty, Father Forever, Prince of Peace."

Of course it could also be honestly translated:

"The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."

 

[teddy trueblood]

Is. 9:6 (from my personal study)

Part Three

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[a] "The Mighty God is planning grace,
The Eternal Father, a peacable ruler"

[Bracketed letters above added by me.]

This last translation above is particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means

[a] "Quick to the plunder;
swift to the spoil") - NIV footnote, but the very introduction to this Messianic Name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism:

[a] "for unto us a child is born;
unto us a son is given."

It would therefore be appropriate to find that Is. 9:6, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear to a number of respected Hebrew scholars that Is. 9:6 does not necessarily imply that Jesus is Jehovah God! [2]

 

[teddy trueblood]

Is 9:6 (from my own personal study)

Last Part (End Notes):

[1] "Now Malchiel means 'God is King,'... Gedaliah 'Jehovah is Great,' Zerahiah 'Jehovah hath risen in splendor,' Jehozadak 'Jehovah is righteous,' and Joel, if a compound name, 'Jehovah is God.' A moment's reflection makes clear that these names do not describe the persons who bear them, but in every case speak of God. They emphasize the important facts that personal names might be, and often were, memorial and doctrinal, and that personal names were a part of the ordinary speech of the people, full of meaning and intelligible to all, subject to the phonetic laws of the Hebrews, and obedient to the rules of grammar. ....

"But with Jehoshaphat, Abijah's grandson, early in the ninth century [B.C.], the custom became established. Henceforth it was conventional for the king of Judah to have for his name a sentence with Jehovah as its subject. .... During the five centuries and a half, beginning near the close of Solomon's reign and extending to the end of Nehemiah's administration, 22 high priests held office, so far as their names have been preserved in the records. Of these pontiffs 17 bear names whcih are sentences with Jehovah as subject, and another is a sentence with El ['God'] as subject. .... Evidently the priests at Jehovah's temple at Jerusalem not only recognized the appropriateness for themselves and their families of names possessing a general religious character, but came to favor such as expressly mentioned God" - p. 2115, vol. 3, The International Bible Standard Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans, 1984.

[2] bar_enosh replied to this study (which I posted on-line a number of yers ago) as follows:

"The Stone Tanach (Artscroll Mesorah, 1999) gives: 'The Wondrous Advisor, Mighty God, Eternal Father called his name Sar-shalom [Prince of Peace].'

"These renderings essentially follow the classical Jewish commentators, such as Rashi and Kimchi, who render 'The God, who is called and is Wonder, Counselor, the mighty God, the eternal Father, calls his name the Prince of Peace.' Another commentator, Luzzato, renders 'God the mighty, the eternal Father, the Prince of Peace, resolves upon wonderful things,' and is prophetically declarative, as were the names of Isaiah's sons. (Keil and Delitzsch)

"Grammatically the Hebrew terms in the Hebrew text can be read in several different ways, as mini-sentences or as straight 'titles'."

 

[teddy trueblood]

Tina wrote:

“I believe this site explains it all .....

Is the New World Translation (NWT) a valid version of the Bible?â€


But I’m sorry to say that all it truly explains is the gullibility of those who desperately want to believe something no matter what the actual facts are.
Tina’s link above leads to an article on an anti-JW site which accuses the NWT of dishonest translation (at best). Since it spends most of its space on John 1:1c, let’s examine that. Here is a quote from it to start:

“The most well-known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1. The original Greek text reads, ‘the Word was God.’ The NWT renders it as ‘the word was a god.’ This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, ‘a’ or ‘an’), so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.â€

The words I emphasized in the quote above are simply an opinion. And when we finish, you will see that it is a false opinion. The truth is that the trinitarian rendering of “And the Word was God†is a result of reading one’s preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

As should be well-known to all Christians, the trinity doctrine was forced on Christians in the 4th century by a Roman Emperor and the Roman Church which advised him. Those who did not accept this doctrine were severely punished for many centuries (with banishment or even death).

So it is not strange that preconceived theology today is well-represented by the trinity doctrine. And, that until relatively recently, Bibles were translated with a trinitarian bias. In fact a number of things were actually changed in the Greek texts by the many trinitarian copyists through the ages so that a trinitarian ‘proof’ could be found.

It is correct that there is no indefinite article (‘a,’ or ‘an’) in NT Greek. However, there is in the ancient Coptic language of Egypt which is probably the first language John was translated into. And, yes, this early translation (when NT Greek was still well-understood and used throughout the Mediterranean area) renders John 1:1c as “and the word was a god.â€

The famous Christian scholar, Origen, of the 3rd century also says as much in his “Commentary on John.â€

And because the following scholars are trinitarian scholars writing for a trinitarian audience, they insist that John 1:1c must be rendered in a trinitarian way. And yet they admit that literally and grammatically the NT Greek can be translated “and a god was the word.â€

Even the very trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Wordâ€. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

And trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.†- Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

The reason Prof. Dodd still rejects “a god†as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upsets his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel!

Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism†will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. This, again, is mere opinion not grammar.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word†- p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wong.†- p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985. Again, the trinitarian reasoning is simply opinion not grammar.

(Continued in Part B.)

 

[teddy trueblood]

B. God and gods (Most of my posts in this discussion (and most others) are taken from my own longer personal studies which are found on certain on-line sites.)

Some Trinitarians insist that there are only God and false gods (polytheism). Therefore, in their ignorant opinions, The Word could not be “a god,†but only “God.â€

But the many recognized modern Bible scholars (most of them trinitarian, of course) recognize that men and angels who have been entrusted with representing God are sometimes called "god" [elohim - Hebrew, and theos - Greek] and "son of God" in the scriptures! This understanding is also found in the writings of Christians clear back to the 5th century A.D. In fact, these two terms are often used together or interchangeably in parallel usages.

The Trinitarian-written NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, also clearly recognizes the above truth:

"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title 'god' ... or be called 'son of God'." - footnote for Ps. 82:1.

And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this same trinitarian study Bible tells us: "In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6)."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:

"The reason why judges are called 'gods' in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God's judgment as 'sons of the Most High'. In context of the Ps[alm] the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a 'god' and 'son of the Most High'." - Vol. 3, p. 187.

The respected (and trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:

"The word [theos, 'god' or 'God'] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34" - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

Elohim: "a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97:7 ..."

Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5,6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word "angels" is used (in place of elohim in the OT) in NT Greek.

The trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 -

"The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for 'God' or 'the gods'; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels]."

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods include:

1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, "Hints and Helps...," Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press,1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of "The Epistle to Diognetus"; and even super-Trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for "a god." And, as we saw above, many respected NT scholars of this era agree.

A trinitarian (Catholic) professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Chicago, John J. Collins, writes about such usage in Jewish writings around the time of Christ:

"In this literature, the supremacy of the Most High God is never questioned, but there is considerable room for lesser beings who may be called 'gods,' theoi or elim. Moreover, both the authors of the apocalyptic literature [which includes the scriptural writings of the books of Daniel and Revelation] and Philo single out one pre-eminent divine or angelic being under God - a super-angel - called by various names in the apocalyptic texts and identified as the Logos ['the Word'] by Philo." - p. 93, Aspects of Monotheism - How God is One, Biblical Archaeological Society, 1997.

All of this shows the scriptural understanding (as well as the same understanding by Christian writers of the first centuries) of "god" as applied to angels and certain men who were trying to follow God or who were representatives or ambassadors for God. Just because it sounds strange to our modern ears is no reason to ignore the facts. And there is no valid reason to take advantage of that fact by claiming that only two understandings of the words theos and elohim are possible: "God" and "false gods." Men, angels, and Jesus could certainly be called 'gods' in scripture.

 

[felix]

teddy trueblood, FYI, there was already a translation in Greek 300 years before Christ called Septuagint, which existed when Jesus walked on this world. Hence, we now have 2 different sources in 2 different languages speaking the same content to verify the words of God - i.e, w.r.t Isa 9:6

Let me tell you, if God spoke man to death in garden of Eden, every man will die without question. Who has the power to break God's Words and redeem man from death? If anyone below or subordinate than God can break God's words, then anything God had spoken can be broken, expect, IF Christ who redeemed us is God and He Himself is YHWH in flesh and His name is Everlasting Father!

 

[teddy trueblood]

C.
The next statement in Tina’s link is:

“There is a good reason why theos has no definite article in John 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why.

“1. In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Object. Thus, ‘Harry called the dog’ is not equivalent to ‘the dog called Harry.’ But in Greek, a word's function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word's root. There are two case endings for the root theo: one is -s (theos), the other is -n (theon). The -s ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the -n ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.â€
.............................................

This is basically true but incomplete. Yes noun endings determine a word’s function in NT Greek. There are more than two such endings for the root theo:

1. One is -s (theos, θεὸς ). This is used for subjects and predicate nouns (as used in John 1:1c).

2. Another is -n (theon, θεόν). This is used for direct objects and objects of certain prepositions such as “to†and "with": "to God").

3. Another is -u (theou, θεοῦ). This is used as a genitive or a prepositional phrase usually meaning “of God.â€

4. Another is theo, θεῷ). This is also used as a prepositional phrase often meaning “with God†or “toward God.â€

5. There are others, but the above 4 are all we’ll need to know.

The important thing to understand with these different forms is that only the subject (nominative) form, θεὸς, uses the definite article (‘the’) with regularity in the writings of John. As long as it is used as it is in John 1:1c (without modifying prepositional phrases: “God of Israel,†“God to you,†“God with us,†etc.), we can trust that the use of the article with it indicates the true god (God). If it is used as in John 1:1c (without modifying prepositional phrases and without the article) it indicates “a god.â€

The #2 form, θεόν, is almost as regular in its article usage. There are only a very few times when it is understood as God without the article. I can explain these exceptions, but it takes up a whole study of many pages and will reserve it for another time.

As already stated, the truly important thing is that in order to determine the translation of John 1:1c, we must understand that John only uses the θεὸς form with the article (‘the god,’ ὁ θεὸς) and without modifying prepositional phrases to mean “God.†This is exactly what is found in John 1:1c and is the reason that even some noted trinitarian scholars admit tha John 1:1c literally means “and the word was a god.â€

(Continued in D. below.)

 

[teddy trueblood]

Hi, Felix,

My copy of The Septuagint (LXX) says at Is. 9:6: "For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger [lit. aggelos, Angel] of great counsel: for I [God] will bring peace upon the princes and health to him."

We also have the Great Isaiah Scroll from 100 B.C. which is the same at Is. 9:6 as the Hebrew Masoretic text used today.

But our copies of the Septuagint today come from the 4th and 5th centuries A.D.

 

[felix]

teddy trueblood,

I overlooked LXXE.

But, you did not address this:
If God spoke man to death in garden of Eden, every man will die without question. Who has the power to break God's Words and redeem man from death? If anyone below or subordinate than God, can break God's words, then anything God had spoken can be broken, expect, IF Christ who redeemed us is God and He Himself is YHWH in flesh and His name is Everlasting Father!

Hence, according to JW, anyone lower than God can break or change God's Words.. may be by a "human" sacrifice ?

 

[teddy trueblood]

D.

Tina’s link next said:

“2. When a noun functions as a predicate nominative [also called a predicate noun] (in English, a noun that follows a being verb such as ‘is’), its case ending must match the noun's case that it renames, so that the reader will know which noun it is defining. Therefore, theo must take the -s ending because it is renaming logos. Therefore, John 1:1 transliterates to ‘kai theos en ho logos.’ Is theos the subject, or is logos? Both have the -s ending. The answer is found in the next rule.

“3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (‘the Word’) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as ‘and the Word was God’ (instead of ‘and God was the word’).â€

There are exceptions to #2 above, but for our purposes it is close enough.

The “author†does not add the definite article. The definite article is there because the noun it modifies is intended to be definite (“the man,†“the house,†“the prophet,†etc.), not to show that it is the subject.

The fact is that predicate noun clauses normally go from the definite to the indefinite (one of a certain class): “the man is a priest†(not “a priest is the manâ€) “the stranger was a prophet,†(not “a prophet was the strangerâ€), etc. This is just normal usage, not the definite article being “added†to indicate the subject! As with most things, there are some exceptions:

John 1:20 - “I not am the christ†is rendered “I am not the Christ†- (RSV) Notice that the definite article is with the predicate noun because it is definite (‘the Christ’)! (Not because it is the subject!).

Jn 1:21 - “the prophet are you.†is rendered “Are you the Prophet?†- (NAB) Notice that “the†was not added to make “prophet†the subject! It is there simply because ‘the Prophet’ is definite (even though it is the predicate noun)!

We could also find, at times, where both nouns are indefinite similar to these: “a man is a mammal,†“a tree is a plant,†etc.

So “the†is not added to indicate the subject in a predicate noun clause! It is there simply to indicate a definite noun.

The above-quoted article’s conclusion:

“So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as ‘and the Word was God’ (instead of ‘and God was the word’).â€

is ludicrous. Whether subject or predicate noun, the use of the article shows that noun is definite. It has no bearing on rendering John 1:1c as “And the Word was God (‘the god’).â€

Furthermore, whenever we find a predicate noun clause which is truly parallel to John 1:1c (“non-prepositional†count noun as predicate noun coming before its verb) in John’s writings, we see that the predicate noun is always indefinite:

1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jewâ€) - all translations
2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophetâ€) - all
3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devilâ€/“a slandererâ€) - all
4. John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murdererâ€/“a manslayerâ€) - all
5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritanâ€) - all
6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinnerâ€) - all
7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plundererâ€) - all
8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a manâ€) - all
9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jewâ€) - all
10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a kingâ€) - all
11. John 18:37 (b) - indefite (“a kingâ€) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

So, it easy to see why even some noted trinitarian scholars reluctantly admit that John 1:1c can be literally and grammatically as “and the Word was a god.â€

(Continued in E. below)

 

[teddy trueblood]

E.

The next two paragraphs from the anti-JW site found in Tina’s link:

“The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article.* The New World Translation renders none of these as ‘a god.’** Just three verses after John 1:1, the New World Translation translates another case of theos without the indefinite article as ‘God.’*** Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both ‘God’ and ‘god’ in the very same sentence.****

“The Watchtower, therefore, has no hard textual grounds for their translation—only their own theological bias. While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have done, they cannot show that it is the proper translation. Nor can they explain the fact that that the NWT does not translate the same Greek phrases elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way.***** It is only the pre-conceived heretical rejection of the deity of Christ that forces the Watchtower Society to inconsistently translate the Greek text, thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy in the minds of those ignorant of the facts.†[Asterisks were added by me to indicate my footnotes]:

*There is a total of 13 uses of theon in John. NINE of them use the article for “God.â€

** The NWT renders theon without the article at John 10:33 as “a god.†The other 3 uses of theon are “preposition-modified†and therefore are even more irregular in article usage.

*** Five verses after John 1:1 (John 1:6), we find theou which is often rendered “God†with or without the article. It is a non-example to use in comparison with all John’s uses of theos!

**** Both theos and theon are found in John 1:18. The NWT renders theon (without the article) as “God,†and theos (without the article) as “god†there.

Significantly, this is the second of only two uses of theos without the article, and both are applied to Jesus. Since theos is the form which consistently uses the article to mean “God†in John’s writings, and the other forms are not consistent, this use of theon is not a proper example in examining John’s use of theos at John 1:1c.

***** As we saw in D. (my previous post), it is the many trinitarian Bibles which render John 1:1c as “and the Word was God†which do “not ranslate the same Greek [clauses] elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way.â€

 

[teddy trueblood]

Felix wrote:

“If God spoke man to death in garden of Eden, every man will die without question. Who has the power to break God's Words and redeem man from death? If anyone below or subordinate than God, can break God's words, then anything God had spoken can be broken, expect [except?], IF Christ who redeemed us is God and He Himself is YHWH in flesh and His name is Everlasting Father!


……………................…….

Are you seriously suggesting that YHWH does not have the ability to grant whatever power or authority he wishes to whomever he wishes?

The Father (YHWH alone), the only true God, SENT Jesus Christ to earth. - John 17:1, 3, 18. He gave Jesus authority over all flesh. - John 17:2. He gave Jesus authority to execute judgment (John 5:27).

And why did YHWH send Jesus to earth? For Jesus to do YHWH’s will. Heb. 10:6-10 and John 6:38-40.

 

[felix]

Felix wrote:

“If God spoke man to death in garden of Eden, every man will die without question. Who has the power to break God's Words and redeem man from death? If anyone below or subordinate than God, can break God's words, then anything God had spoken can be broken, expect [except?], IF Christ who redeemed us is God and He Himself is YHWH in flesh and His name is Everlasting Father!


……………................…….

Are you seriously suggesting that YHWH does not have the ability to grant whatever power or authority he wishes to whomever he wishes?

The Father (YHWH alone), the only true God, SENT Jesus Christ to earth. - John 17:1, 3, 18. He gave Jesus authority over all flesh. - John 17:2. He gave Jesus authority to execute judgment (John 5:27).

And why did YHWH send Jesus to earth? For Jesus to do YHWH’s will. Heb. 10:6-10 and John 6:38-40.

Of course the god of JW has the power to lie and the authority to not keep his words. ha ha...

 

[teddy trueblood]

Another criticism of the NWT concerns the occasional translation of “means” for the NT Greek verb estin (“is”). Zondervan’s So Many Versions (SMV), 1983, (written by trinitarian Bible scholars Kubo and Specht) particularly objects to this (p. 102) and says of 1 Cor. 11:24-25 in the NWT:

“The Greek verb is ‘is’ and should have been translated thus. [The NWT’s] concern for accuracy and literalism seems to be set aside whenever the literal text conflicts with their theological position.” [This last statement should make us carefully examine the literal translation of John 1:1c.]

It is certainly no secret that the Greek verb “is” (estin and its related forms) may be (and often is in most Bible translations) translated as “means,” “represents,” etc. This understanding is clearly shown in NT Greek lexicons. The highly respected Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, for instance, plainly states this on p. 176. (Also see W. E. Vine’s An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 722.)

Actually, to see the truth of this, we only need to examine the following translations of “is”: Matt. 9:13 RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, KJV, NEB, REB, NAB, AT, JB, NJB, etc.; Matt. 12:7; Matt. 13:38; Mark 9:10; and Eph 4:9 RSV, NASB, NIV, NEB, NAB, JB. (Also see John 17:3 GNB, AT, and C. B. Williams, and see Rev. 19:8 NIV, AT.)

Even the NIV (highly praised by SMV) has translated “is” as “leads to” at John 12:50 - “his command leads to [estin] eternal life.” (To be consistent NIV should have done this at Jn 17:3 also.) - Cf. LB, CBW, and AT.

And the acclaimed Bible scholar and translator, Dr. James Moffatt, even rendered the scripture in question (1 Cor. 11:24-25) as: “This means my body …. This cup means the new covenant” - The Bible - A New Translation, Harper and Row, 1954.

And the footnote for 1 Cor. 11:24 in the NIV Study Bible says: “The broken bread is a symbol of Christ’s body given for sinners”. - Zondervan, 1985.

In other words, “this bread means (or symbolizes) my body”

It’s not the NWT which is dishonest here. Even to imply that it is improper to translate this verb as “means” is dishonest in the extreme!