What do you think about the New World Translation?

[Guest]

Hi Steve,

What do you think about the New World Translation?

Michelle

[_Steve]

Dear Michelle,

Concerning the New World Translation (NWT), your friend should be informed that there have been over one-hundred English translations made of the New Testament over the past 500 years. The NWT is not exceptional in any way except that it is the only translation made by a cult group attempting to prove their particular doctrines by mistranslating certain key passages. In many cases, the faults of the NWT can be shown to Jehovah's Witnesses by comparing it with another book that they always carry, called "The Emphatic Diaglot" (Diaglot means "two languages", and you can impress them simply by pronouncing the name of this book!). The Emphatic Diaglot is merely a Greek/English interlinear New Testament, which gives the Greek text of the New Testament with the English translation printed word-for-word over the Greek text (several Interlinear New Testaments are available through regular Christian bookstores, but the Emphatic Diaglot is the one that JW's approve and carry with them).

The mistranslation of John 1:1 in the NWT is the best known and most hotly-debated passage in their Bible. Where the Greek text says "The Word was God," their Bible reads, "The Word was a god." They have translated it in this way in order to distance Jesus (the Word) from the identity of Jehovah (God). Jesus, they claim, is a lesser, created being who is simply referred to as "a god" just as Moses was said to be "a god to Pharaoh" or Satan is called "the god of this world." However, the overwhelming majority of Greek scholars believe that the Greek words should be translated "the Word was God" (i.e., "Jesus was Jehovah" ). In Greek, a noun without a definite article (i.e., "the") can sometimes be translated as if the noun has an indefinite article (i.e., "a" or "an"). The noun "theos" ("God") can have the definite article in some cases (reading "the God") or it may lack the definite article and thus be translated "God" or "a god". In John 1:1, the word theos does not have the definite article. Jehovah's witnesses claim that if John had meant to say that Jesus is Jehovah, then he would have written "the Word was THE God." The absence of the article, they say, makes it necessary to translate the phrase as "the Word was A god." This simply isn't true, and demonstrates that JW's do not understand either the Greek language, nor the Bible itself. For one thing, the true God (Jehovah) is often referred to without the definite article (as in John 1:1). In fact, theos without the article refers indisputably to the true God many times in the same chapter (e.g. John 1:6, 12, 13, 18). Though "the Word was with God and the Word was a god" is one of the possible ways in which the Greek sentence can be translated, to do so would make it contradict Deut.32:39, where Jehovah says, "There is no god with me." Many other problems accrue to the NWT of this verse, but suffice it to say, Greek scholars typically do not recommend the NWT, not because they disagree with its doctrines (many Greek scholars have no concern about doctrines) but because they recognize it as an inferior piece of work.

Another example is the NWT rendering of Col.1:16, where Paul writes that "By Him [Christ] all things were created." This sentence rules out the possibility of Christ being one of the created things. However, JW's believe that Jesus was also a created being, so the NWT translates "By Him all other things were created" (inserting "other" in spite of the fact that it is not found anywhere in the Greek text, but to smooth out the difficulty for their theology).

You might show your friend the following, using the actual NWT. In Revelation 1:8, which says "I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "...the Almighty." Since JW's do not believe that Jesus is "the Almighty" (a term they reserve for Jehovah) they have substituted for the words "the Lord," the name "Jehovah," even though the word "kurios" in the Greek means "Lord," not "Jehovah." But they thus acknowledge that the titles "Alpha and Omega" and "the Beginning and the End" belong to Jehovah. Fair enough. They do indeed, according to Isaiah 44:6. However, in Rev.1:11, "the Alpha and the Omega" adopts the additional titles "the First and the Last." Thus we have the same person (Jehovah), called "Alpha and Omega", "the Beginning and the End," and "the First and the Last." This must be the same speaker in verses 17 and 18, then, who says: "Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold I am alive forevermore." Thus we read that Jehovah ("the First and the Last") "was dead." When was this? Obviously, Jesus is the speaker, who is also Jehovah, according to these passages. [Incidentally, all three of the titles for Jehovah appear again in Rev.22:13, where the speaker later identifies Himself as "I, Jesus..." (v.16)].

The JW's reject the doctrine that Jesus is Jehovah because, they say, they cannot understand it, and "God would not ask us to believe something that we cannot understand." However, God may, in fact, call upon us to believe certain things that we can not fully understand. The Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves believe (as do Christians generally) that God has existed forever and ever without a beginning...just always existing! Does anyone claim to be able to understand THAT? The main thing that is wrong with the NWT is that it is contrived to teach that Jesus is not God, and even this they could not consistently do, though they tried valiantly. No one would prefer to believe a doctrine they cannot understand or explain (like the Trinity) unless they were compelled to do so by Scripture. This is why Christians do believe the Trinity doctrine---not because they prefer it, but because the Bible leaves no room to deny it. The JW's have chosen to take the philosophically easy route. By denying the Trinity, they escape the obligation to explain or understand the Trinity. Sadly for them, in order to allow themselves this luxury, they have had to twist and mistranslate the Bible in order to make it support their preferred viewpoints. This is neither honest, nor Christian.

In Jesus,
Steve

[Guest]

Hi Steve.

I liked your comments re the NWT.

Here is a little TXT file I prepared on something that bothers me (among many things that bother me) about the NWT....



The NWT explains that if the "Christian Greek Scriptures" quote an Old
Testment scripture that contains YHWH (Jehovah), or is referring to same, it
is approriate to not translate the greek word 'kryios' as 'Lord', but rather
as 'Jehovah'. In this way, the NWT imports the word 'Jehovah' into the New
Testament.

An example of this can be found at Romans 4:3, which quotes Gen 15:6. Rom 4:3
For what does the scripture say? "Abraham exercised faith in Jehovah, and it
was counted to him as righteousness." (NWT)

However, they are not consistent in this process. Not every use of 'Jehovah'
in the NWT New Testament is derived from an Old Testament quotation. Also,
several examples can be found in which the OT quote referring to Jehovah is
being applied to the person of Jesus. In these scriptures the NWT conveniently
translates (leaves) 'kyrios' as 'Lord'.

Here are several examples:

Psa 34:8 Taste and see that Jehovah is good, O YOU people; (NWT)
1Pe 2:3 provided YOU have tasted that the Lord is kind. (NWT)


Psa 102:25 Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself, And the heavens are the work of your hands. (NWT)
Heb 1:10 And: "You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands. (NWT)

Isa 8:12 ...and the object of their fear YOU men must not fear, nor must YOU tremble at it.
Isa 8:13 Jehovah of armies-he is the One whom YOU should treat as holy, (NWT)

1Pe 3:14 ... However, the object of their fear do not YOU fear, neither become agitated.
1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts... (NWT)

[_Steve]

Hi Keith,
Thanks for your post. It has also been one of my pet peeves with the NWT that they insert the name "Jehovah" in New Testament texts. It seems entirely disingenuous, in that it seems to garner New Testament support to their proposition that we need to address God as "Jehovah" when speaking about Him or to Him. If this is really a necessary way of referring to God, then why did the apostles not retain this name, but rather consistently substituted the generic Greek word "kyrios" ("Lord") for the divine name? Of course, the JW's response is that the apostles actually DID use the name Jehovah in their original writings, but that some sinister churchmen later expunged the name and replaced it with kyrios. Two questions arise: 1) What possible motive could said sinister churchmen have for excluding the divine name, if the apostles and Christ had actually used it? What is there in it that they would have objected to, and what did they stand to gain by so copiously editing the manuscripts? and 2) It is easy to suggest that the original autographs differed from the extant manuscripts in any way that we prefer to imagine (I might as easily suggest that Arian editors of the New Testament excised several hundred passages which, in the original, said "Jesus is the Almighty God"—though, if they did, they missed a few), but without any manuscript evidence to support the contention, such claims have to be regarded as sheer fantasy and wishful thinking.

[Guest]

[John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word” (some versions even write “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translators’ decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture.

As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words.

Any good Greek lexicon will also show this wide range of meaning (the words in italics are translated from logos):

speaking; words you say (Rom. 15:18, “what I have said and done”).
a statement you make (Luke 20:20 - (NASB), “they might catch him in some statement).
a question (Matt. 21:24, “I will also ask you one question”).
preaching (1 Tim. 5:17, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching).
command (Gal. 5:14, “the entire law is summed up in a single command”).
proverb; saying (John 4:37, “thus the saying, ‘One sows, and another reaps’”).
message; instruction; proclamation (Luke 4:32, “his message had authority”).
assertion; declaration; teaching (John 6:60, “this is a hard teaching”).
the subject under discussion; matter (Acts 8:21, “you have no part or share in this ministry.” Acts 15:6 (NASB), “And the apostles... came together to look into this matter”).
revelation from God (Matt. 15:6, “you nullify the Word of God ”).
God’s revelation spoken by His servants (Heb. 13:7, “leaders who spoke the Word of God”).
a reckoning, an account (Matt. 12:36, “men will have to give account” on the day of judgment).
an account or “matter” in a financial sense (Matt. 18:23, A king who wanted to settle “accounts” with his servants. Phil. 4:15, “the matter of giving and receiving”).
a reason; motive (Acts 10:29 - NASB), “I ask for what reason you have sent for me”). [16]
The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meaning. With all the definitions and ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what the logos in John 1:1 is? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos. This verse does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.” “The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.” The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation (Rom. 1:19 and 20), and especially the heavens (Ps. 19). It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, the written Word. Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1 and 2).

The renowned Trinitarian scholar, John Lightfoot, writes:

The word logos then, denoting both “reason” and “speech,” was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) “The Word is a Divine Person,” (2) “The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ.” It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos. [17]

It is important to note that it was “Christian teachers” who attached the idea of a “divine person” to the word logos. It is certainly true that when the word logos came to be understood as being Jesus Christ, the understanding of John 1:1 was altered substantially. Lightfoot correctly understands that the early meaning of logos concerned reason and speech, not “Jesus Christ.” Norton develops the concept of logos as “reason” and writes:


http://biblicalunitarian.com/modules.ph ... age&pid=85

[_Steve]

Hi lumoc1,

Thanks for passing along this website for our consideration. The site has so much information that it will take a long time for me to explore.

I am of the opinion that the trinity is the best way in which to harmonize the relevant textual evidence about the nature of God. I don't see all things the same way as many trinitarians, but the idea that Jesus is anything less than Yahweh come in the flesh seems impossible to maintain without doing injustice to many scriptures.

The idea that the logos is not a direct reference to Christ (preincarnate) is a possibility—but not a strong one, in my judgment. If the logos of John 1:1 simply means "God's thought and self-expression," then verse 14 must mean that God's self-expression was ultimately seen in the coming of Christ in the flesh (as in Heb.1:1-3).

This statement, in itself, might not be a bulletproof declaration of the deity of Christ (since any messenger of God coming in the flesh could be seen as an agent of God's self-expression to man), but here are the problems that I have with this suggestion:

1. In speaking of his own personal communion with Jesus, in the days of His flesh, the same author (John) refers to Him as "the Logos of life," which, he says, "we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled..." (1 John 1:1)

2. The same author also directly identifies Christ in Revelation 19:13, saying, "His name is called the Logos of God."

3. The Logos is personified in John 1:1-9, and given the personal pronoun, "He." It seems that this indicates that the Logos is not being used in the generic sense of "reason" or "speech," but rather as a person—the same person later manifested in the flesh, in verse 14.

4. In multiple passages in both testaments, Jesus is identified with Yahweh in ways that would seem blasphemous, if He is not God in flesh—but also distinguished from the Father in many other passages—just as the Logos is identified with and distinguished from God in John 1:1 ("the word was with God, and the word was God").

I believe that the relationship between Christ (preincarnate) and the Father is mysterious, and that the traditional language adopted since Nicea to codify the trinity doctrine may fall short of descriptive perfection in some ways. However, I think that the biblical evidence, on the whole, favors the precise identification of Christ with the person spoken of as the Logos, in John 1:1.