New World Translation

[xcav8tor]

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 19+ year study (as of 6/2011), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

Hi JohnOneOne,

Well, if it's anything like their previous publication, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", it won't be worth the paper it's printed on. Robert Bowman Jr. wrote an entire book in rebuttal called, "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity" (Baker Book House, c 1989, ISBN 0-8010-0981-2). In it, he exposes exactly where and how the Watchtower has misrepresented the works of distinguished scholars, as well as the Early Church Fathers. Even though the Watchtower made it very difficult to locate the ECF texts they selectively quoted, it can easily seen by anyone who takes the effort to check the context that in each and every case, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertulian, Hippolytus, and Origen offered clear evidence of their belief in Christ's full deity, but have been deliberately misquoted to give the reader the opposite impression. I looked up the original passages for myself (even bought a copy) because I had already seen how the Watchtower had twisted the words of experts before (see below). I challenge you to read Bowman's book and check out the ECF writings for yourself, though I doubt you will. The Watchtower COUNTS ON Witnesses not bothering to looking up the actual sources, because if they did, they would discovery they'd been had.

For example, the way they deliberately misquoted Julius Mantey's words in his "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament" to support their "a god" translation. Judge for yourself. In the index of their Kingdom Interlinear, pg 1159, they quote his book as follows:

With a reference to the Grammar by Dr. Robertson the Manual Grammar by Dana and Mantey, page 140 says: "Surely when Robertson says that (greek text) [theos], as to the article, 'is treated like a proper name and may have it or not have it' (R. 761), he does not mean to intimate that the presence or absence of the article with theos has no special significance. We construe him to mean that there is no definite rule governing the use of the article with theos, so that sometimes the writer's viewpoint is difficult to detect, which is entirely true. But in the great majority of instances the reason for the distinction is clear. The use of theos in John 1:1 is a good example." The above disposes of the trinitarian argument that the article was omitted before theos in the predicate of John 1:1 according to the general rule that it was not needed, but would be understood.

Now look what they left out. The very next sentence continues (I know because I bought Mantey's book):

"The use of theos in John 1:1 is a good example. Pros ton theon points to Christ's fellowship with the person of the Father; theos en ho logos emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature. The former clearly applies to personality, while the latter applies to character.

They could not have quoted the first portion without seeing the following sentence. Their choice to stop the quote where they did was undeniably deliberate - they did not want the reader to know Mantey's scholarly opinion that John 1:1 states that Christ shared in the Father's divine essence.

They did the same thing to Mantey earlier in the same article on pg 1158 where they suggest his Grammar supports their view:

That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on page 140... that in a copulative sentence sometimes the article makes the subject distinct from the predicate. Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion ho en to xorion, but the place was a market, corresponds with what is stated in John 1:1.

What Dana and Mantey actually wrote was:

"The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion ho en to xorion, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos."

Note that the Watchtower stopped their sentence at a comma, leaving out Mantey's translation as well as his accompanying explanation. While they do include Mantey's translation in the next paragraph, they do not tell the reader his reasoning behind it. Hardly a fair or honest use of a source IMO.

Judging by their past history of misrepresenting the authors and sources they quote for reference, I see no reason to expect anything different from this latest publication. I would suggest you not get too excited about their, "What about John 1:1?" until you have confirmed with your own eyes that what they tell you the authors said was actually - and in context - what the authors really said.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[apostoli]

Hi JohnOneOne,

Well, if it's anything like their previous publication, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", it won't be worth the paper it's printed on.

To be fair the same can be said of much written by the opposing camp...each misrepresents...just the nature of biased commentary.

In my studies, there isn't a single Greek grammarian, recognised as authoritive, that would, under the rules of judicial evidence, support either the KJV rendering or the NWT rendering.

So I think your argument is just a pretense for some other objective! The only argument in favour of "the Word was God", is that supported by oneness pentecostals, the INC & Christadelphians. Imo, such a pursuasion is a direct denial of Trinitarianism.

As you should recall, I do not accept the NWT translation, which imo supports Tri-theism...

To be brief: the JWs, imu, take the philosophical position = that to be "God" is to be the "primal being" itself (cp. Philo, Eusebius.N etc), anything else is either an emanation of God (Sabellianism) or a creation out of nothing (Arianism), therefore not "o theos". The Trinitarian view takes the middle ground = the Son is not an emanation (as a ray of light from the sun), nor is he a creation ex nihilo. How he was begotten in eternity is unrevealed! All we know, is that though he was sent, he doesn't proceed from the Father as an issue...which is self evident from scripture. We are simply told that Jesus is "son", and being "son", he is what his father is...thus John 1:1c (cp. Heb 1:3)

Imo, it ain't rocket science...

[JohnOneOne]

To be fair the same can be said of much written by the opposing camp...each misrepresents...just the nature of biased commentary.

In my studies, there isn't a single Greek grammarian, recognised as authoritive, that would, under the rules of judicial evidence, support either the KJV rendering or the NWT rendering.

So I think your argument is just a pretense for some other objective! The only argument in favour of "the Word was God", is that supported by oneness pentecostals, the INC & Christadelphians. Imo, such a pursuasion is a direct denial of Trinitarianism.

As you should recall, I do not accept the NWT translation, which imo supports Tri-theism...

To be brief: the JWs, imu, take the philosophical position = that to be "God" is to be the "primal being" itself (cp. Philo, Eusebius.N etc), anything else is either an emanation of God (Sabellianism) or a creation out of nothing (Arianism), therefore not "o theos". The Trinitarian view takes the middle ground = the Son is not an emanation (as a ray of light from the sun), nor is he a creation ex nihilo. How he was begotten in eternity is unrevealed! All we know, is that though he was sent, he doesn't proceed from the Father as an issue...which is self evident from scripture. We are simply told that Jesus is "son", and being "son", he is what his father is...thus John 1:1c (cp. Heb 1:3)

Imo, it ain't rocket science...

The following might be of some interest. In commentary of Jesus words within John 10:34, 35 (as quoted from Psalm 82:6), there is this:

"The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘elohîm) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,…"

Taken from: Blomberg, Craig L. (b.?-d.?), Distinguished professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary, Colorado; Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. "The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary." (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), "The feast of Dedication" ([John] 10:22-42), p. 163. BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[One Bad Pig]

The following might be of some interest. In commentary of Jesus words within John 10:34, 35 (as quoted from Psalm 82:6), there is this:

"The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘elohîm) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,…"

Taken from: Blomberg, Craig L. (b.?-d.?), Distinguished professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary, Colorado; Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. "The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary." (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), "The feast of Dedication" ([John] 10:22-42), p. 163. BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

*Googles*

Dang, you get a lot of mileage out of this quote, don't you? 19/20 top hits are you posting this on other discussion boards! Fortunately, the other is the hit in Google Books, so I can see the context. It doesn't seem to mean what you think it means.

[apostoli]

The following might be of some interest. In commentary of Jesus words within John 10:34, 35 (as quoted from Psalm 82:6), there is this:

"The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘elohîm) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,…"

In this respect I'll make a minor comment: Of all the elohim, who could claim a John 12:45 or a John 14:9? Have a think about it! Especially, have a think on John 20:31! What is the significance of Jesus being sent? And more particularly sent as the Son of the Father? Even, of more significance is John 17:3! Why is it necessary to have γινώσκωσιν (an intimate relationship) with both the father & the son?

[xcav8tor]

Well, if it's anything like their previous publication, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", it won't be worth the paper it's printed on.

To be fair the same can be said of much written by the opposing camp...each misrepresents...just the nature of biased commentary.

Hi apostoli,

Have you read the JW publication, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", or Robert Bowman Jr's rebuttal, "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity"? If you haven't, it would seem to me that you are hardly justified in accusing Bowman of "biased commentary."

As I said, the ECFs listed clearly endorse Christ's deity yet the Watchtower tried to portray them as if they didn't. Pointing out their dishonesty and backing it up with accurate quotations is not a matter of bias.

Regards,
xcav8tor

PS - would you mind sending me a PM with instructions on how to incorporate Greek text? Thanks.

[apostoli]

Have you read the JW publication, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", or Robert Bowman Jr's rebuttal, "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity"? If you haven't, it would seem to me that you are hardly justified in accusing Bowman of "biased commentary."

As I said, the ECFs listed clearly endorse Christ's deity yet the Watchtower tried to portray them as if they didn't. Pointing out their dishonesty and backing it up with accurate quotations is not a matter of bias.

Bowman makes a lot of mistakes in his apologies...so I just ignore him...

Have I read "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity"? Probably, and probably it was forgetable! Just as a similiar book I read decades ago that set me back at least a decade as the idiocity of argument was so readily refutable -- remember I am arguing as a Trinitarian, therefore I'm not going to defend Trinitarian belief from a defective source!

PS - would you mind sending me a PM with instructions on how to incorporate Greek text? Thanks.

I just cut and paste from BLB or Biblios...

[The Remonstrant]

Does anyone have a copy of the New World Translation they are willing to part with?

Free NWT Online

As there are loads of responses (and this is a really old thread), I don't know if anyone has already posted this, but here is a link for the New World (Order) Translation (NWT) online:

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/

[OmniSkeptical]

As much as, I would like to defend the NWT; I can't. It shows intentional meddling not justified by the greek new testament; whereas most translations are just biased because of inaccurate or lazy rendering of the greek new testament.

[Lk4truth]

I got one on eBay for 2 dollars a few years ago. It's a very literal translation, and for some reason is holds much less bias than the other common translations, such as the NIV and KJV. If you're looking to compare translations, get the book Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in the New Testament by Jason David Debuhn
Just make sure you don't get the Old Testament version of the book, it's by a different author, but the titles are similar.

[Sparko]

I got one on eBay for 2 dollars a few years ago. It's a very literal translation, and for some reason is holds much less bias than the other common translations, such as the NIV and KJV. If you're looking to compare translations, get the book Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in the New Testament by Jason David Debuhn
Just make sure you don't get the Old Testament version of the book, it's by a different author, but the titles are similar.

no bias? It's a horrible translation. completely wrong in most places and obviously biased in many places like John 1, and Collosians. The translator didn't even know greek.

PS if you are a Jehovah's Witness you need to change your religious designation on your profile to indicate that. On this particular site "Christian" is reserved for orthodox trinitarian Christians.

[Phat8594]

I got one on eBay for 2 dollars a few years ago. It's a very literal translation, and for some reason is holds much less bias than the other common translations, such as the NIV and KJV.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain untrue. Going through the NWT, one can see the many, many, many mistranslations - added words - changed titles, etc. all to suit JW theology. In fact, it wasn't even translated by actual scholars! I have even caught places where it has translated the word 'adonai' as Jehovah in the OT!!! It doesn't even follow it's own rules...ridiculous.