New World Translation

[Dee Dee Warren]

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[One Bad Pig]

Tell me, do you use a Bible other than the ones mentioned here?

Yup. New King James Version, New English Translation.

Seriously, though, no one is saying that the NWT is completely wrong. As far as I recall, it follows the Greek rather woodenly until there's a theological reason not to; then extra words suddenly appear.

Just because the NWT is similar in some verses to your list of translations does not mean that the NWT is as good as any one of those on the list. I much prefer the NASV to the NRSV (I have both), even though they may occasionally agree word for word.

[NonTrinitarian]

Yup. New King James Version, New English Translation.

Seriously, though, no one is saying that the NWT is completely wrong. As far as I recall, it follows the Greek rather woodenly until there's a theological reason not to; then extra words suddenly appear.

Just because the NWT is similar in some verses to your list of translations does not mean that the NWT is as good as any one of those on the list. I much prefer the NASV to the NRSV (I have both), even though they may occasionally agree word for word.

And I have many translations too. I prefer the rendering of different Bibles in different verses because they come across clearer. But in this discussion, the point is about the verses in question. For instance, many people attack the NWT because of Romans 9:5. Yet note these other Bibles that read the same way (as in NOT calling Jesus God):

The New American Bible
A New Translation of the Bible-by James Moffat
New English Bible (I assume this is the same as what you have)
Today's Englsih Version
Contemporary English Version
Revised Standard Version
New Living Translation footnote

All of these Bibles, accept for Moffat's, are found at nearly any bookstore.

Now, in listing these I am not saying "See, here's proof the NWT is right." These could all be wrong too. And I'm sure many Trinitarians would say they are, though they should note that the translators of these were Trinitarians too, at least most of them were. But these translators have the credentials that people are looking for from the NWT committee.

So, here are similar translations. Do their credentials automatically convince you the translation is correct? No, because people with the same credentials choose the other way to translate it. Thus, it's not the GRAMMAR that is in question here. It's not the knowledge of the GREEK that determines the translation. Read Murray Harris' "Jesus As God" for instance. The translation is often based on the translator's opinion as to who is being references. All Bible translations are effected by the theology of the translators.

[One Bad Pig]

And I have many translations too. I prefer the rendering of different Bibles in different verses because they come across clearer. But in this discussion, the point is about the verses in question. For instance, many people attack the NWT because of Romans 9:5.

I don't have a copy of the NWT, so you'd need to post the verse for me to compare it with other translations. However, the difference here is strictly a matter of puncuation, as far as I can tell. Since punctuation was not originally in the text, I'm not going to use it to argue one way or the other. I wonder how the NWT deals with Col. 2:9?

Yet note these other Bibles that read the same way (as in NOT calling Jesus God):

The New American Bible
A New Translation of the Bible-by James Moffat
New English Bible (I assume this is the same as what you have)

Nope. NET. Look for it at http://www.bible.org/

Today's Englsih Version
Contemporary English Version
Revised Standard Version
New Living Translation footnote

I'm not sure why you included the footnote; it just highlights the ambiguity of your position.

So, here are similar translations. Do their credentials automatically convince you the translation is correct? No, because people with the same credentials choose the other way to translate it. Thus, it's not the GRAMMAR that is in question here. It's not the knowledge of the GREEK that determines the translation. Read Murray Harris' "Jesus As God" for instance. The translation is often based on the translator's opinion as to who is being references. All Bible translations are effected by the theology of the translators.

Yes, the theology of the translators will affect translation somewhat. An interlinear translation (or footnotes showing the literal translation where it is deviated from for clarity) will tend to expose that. However, if the translators cannot adequately demonstrate their knowledge of the language being translated from (a charge to which you have done no more than dodge in reply), then word choice will be based almost exclusively on theology.

[NonTrinitarian]

I don't have a copy of the NWT, so you'd need to post the verse for me to compare it with other translations. However, the difference here is strictly a matter of puncuation, as far as I can tell. Since punctuation was not originally in the text, I'm not going to use it to argue one way or the other.

We agree. To me there are a number of verses that can go "either way", as the many Bible translations testify. Thus it's shakey evidence.

I'm not sure why you included the footnote; it just highlights the ambiguity of your position.

No, it actually highlights my position, which is to demonstrate the ambiguity of the verse. My position is that many of these verses are ambiguous and the many different translations of the verse testify to that. In the same way, some of these Bibles that translate like the NWT have in their footnotes the Trinitarian alternative. This too highlights the ambiguity. It comes down to interpretation rather than translation, and thus, the scholastic credentials are seldom a true issue. It's a strawman.

Yes, the theology of the translators will affect translation somewhat. An interlinear translation (or footnotes showing the literal translation where it is deviated from for clarity) will tend to expose that. However, if the translators cannot adequately demonstrate their knowledge of the language being translated from (a charge to which you have done no more than dodge in reply), then word choice will be based almost exclusively on theology.

And I can't answer the charge on their credentials because I don't know their credentials. All I can do is say "look, here are people with the scholastic credentials who agree with the NWT."

I wonder how the NWT deals with Col. 2:9?

"Because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily."

[One Bad Pig]

No, it actually highlights my position, which is to demonstrate the ambiguity of the verse. My position is that many of these verses are ambiguous and the many different translations of the verse testify to that. In the same way, some of these Bibles that translate like the NWT have in their footnotes the Trinitarian alternative. This too highlights the ambiguity. It comes down to interpretation rather than translation, and thus, the scholastic credentials are seldom a true issue. It's a strawman.

Credentials provide credibility; they demonstrate that someone has the requisite knowledge to do the job properly. I'm not going to trust Joe the plumber to design a dam properly; the fact that he is ignorant of how to calculate material properties is just going to provide an exclamation point to my rejection. In the same way, I'm not going to trust someone to properly translate anything from an ancient language if they don't have the proper credentials; the fact that they cannot demonstrate a proficiency in the original language is, again, just going to provide an exclamation point to my rejection.

And I can't answer the charge on their credentials because I don't know their credentials. All I can do is say "look, here are people with the scholastic credentials who agree with the NWT."

Just because Joe happens to get some details correct doesn't mean I'll accept his design.

[Colossians 2:9 NWT]
"Because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily."

A valiant effort to obfuscate the deity of Jesus. I can still see it there, though. If he's got all the divine qualities, how is he not deity himself?

[NonTrinitarian]

In the same way, I'm not going to trust someone to properly translate anything from an ancient language if they don't have the proper credentials; the fact that they cannot demonstrate a proficiency in the original language is, again, just going to provide an exclamation point to my rejection.

The NWT is their demonstration of their abilities. Prove them wrong. To do so requires you to prove a number of other Bibles wrong. Unless you can show where they are grammatically wrong, on what basis do you attack their abilities in Greek?

regarding Col 2:9, you said

A valiant effort to obfuscate the deity of Jesus. I can still see it there, though. If he's got all the divine qualities, how is he not deity himself?

How about you read the next verse?

"10When you come to him, that fullness comes together for you, too. His power extends over everything."-The Message Bible

"10And you [1] are in Him, made full and having come to fullness of life [in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--and reach full spiritual stature]." The Amplified Bible

"And by your union with him, you also are filled with it."-Twentieth Century New Testament

So, whatever it is in verse 9 that dwells in Christ, dwells in us too. If it makes him God, what does it make us?
You also might want to check out Eph 3:19

"That ye might be filled with all the fullness of God"- King james

"that you may be filled up with all the fullness of God"- New American Standard Bible

"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."- New International Version

"And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself."- The Living Bible

Now imagine this: If a verse existed that said of Jesus, "He was filled up with all the fullness of God" or "Jesus was filled up with God Himself", don't you think Trinitarians would point to that and say "See, this verse says Jesus is God!" You know they would.

So what do they say about Eph 3:19?

[One Bad Pig]

The NWT is their demonstration of their abilities. Prove them wrong. To do so requires you to prove a number of other Bibles wrong. Unless you can show where they are grammatically wrong, on what basis do you attack their abilities in Greek?

Your defensiveness on this issue is telling. I don't care if you can find places where other translations agree with the NWT; anyone can pick read a bunch of translations and then pick and choose verse by verse what most agrees with his theology. That's not a translation, that's bias. Find some credentialed scholars who will agree with the NWT explicitly and I'll moderate my stance.

regarding Col 2:9, you said

A valiant effort to obfuscate the deity of Jesus. I can still see it there, though. If he's got all the divine qualities, how is he not deity himself?

How about you read the next verse?

"and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority.[NRSV]" works. Even the commentary states that the divine nature (not just the divine attributes) dwells in Christ, and it's about as liberal a commentary as you'll find.

"10When you come to him, that fullness comes together for you, too. His power extends over everything."-The Message Bible

"10And you are in Him, made full and having come to fullness of life [in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--and reach full spiritual stature]." The Amplified Bible

"And by your union with him, you also are filled with it."-Twentieth Century New Testament

So, whatever it is in verse 9 that dwells in Christ, dwells in us too. If it makes him God, what does it make us?

The Message and The Amplified Bible are very loose translations, and as such are heavily influenced by the translators' theology. I've never heard of the Twentieth Century NT.

You also might want to check out Eph 3:19

"That ye might be filled with all the fullness of God"- King james

"that you may be filled up with all the fullness of God"- New American Standard Bible

"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."- New International Version

"And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself."- The Living Bible

Now imagine this: If a verse existed that said of Jesus, "He was filled up with all the fullness of God" or "Jesus was filled up with God Himself", don't you think Trinitarians would point to that and say "See, this verse says Jesus is God!" You know they would.

I do? Nope. As Christians, we are all filled up with God Himself (the Holy Spirit).

So what do they say about Eph 3:19?

John Gill
"That ye might be filled with all the fulness of God;"
this is the last petition, and is to be understood, not of a full comprehension of the divine Being, nor of a communication of his divine perfections, nor of having in them the fulness of grace, which it has pleased God should dwell in Christ; but either of that fulness of good things, which they may receive from God in this life; as to be filled with a sense of the love and grace of God; with satisfying views of interest in the righteousness of Christ; with the Spirit, and the gifts and graces thereof; with full provisions of food for their souls; with spiritual peace, joy, and comfort; with knowledge of divine things, of God in Christ, of Christ, of the Gospel, and of the will of God; and with all the fruits or righteousness, or good works springing from grace; or else of that fulness which they shall receive hereafter, even complete holiness, perfection of knowledge, fulness of joy and peace, entire conformity to God and Christ, and everlasting communion with them.

Geneva Study Bible
"that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. " -- So that we have abundantly in us whatever things are required to make us perfect with God.

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
filled with--rather, as Greek, "filled even unto all the fulness of God" (this is the grand goal), that is, filled, each according to your capacity, with the divine wisdom, knowledge, and love; "even as God is full," and as Christ who dwells in your hearts, hath "all the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily"

This commentary refers back to Col. 2:9, showing that we have the potential to be filled with God's wisdom, knowledge, and love just like Christ is already filled with the complete attributes of God. The fullness of God is not equivalent to the fullness of the Godhead, which is where your example breaks down.

For more commentaries, visit http://www.crosswalk.com/

[NonTrinitarian]

Your defensiveness on this issue is telling. I don't care if you can find places where other translations agree with the NWT; anyone can pick read a bunch of translations and then pick and choose verse by verse what most agrees with his theology. That's not a translation, that's bias. Find some credentialed scholars who will agree with the NWT explicitly and I'll moderate my stance.

If by "explicitly" you mean a scholar who agrees with EVERY verse, I cannot. But then, if scholars agreed with the rendering of every verse in a Bible, we'd only have one translation. Each of the Bibles I listed earlier have scholars who agree with at least one verse in the NWT in regards to the Trinity.

As far as Col 2:9, let me break it down for you a little more. Verse 9 says "because in him is dwelling all the fullness of the divinity (theotetos)". Now, however you want to translate that word, Godhead, divine qualities or chicken noodle soup is irrelevent. The reason is because verse 10 says "and you are in him filled". So whatever it is that fills the Christ fills us too.

If it doesn't make us God, it doesn't make him God.

[Ric]

Coincidence? I think not!

Right on target!

[twohumble]

nontrinitarian...here is a few OT passages for your review.

Old Testament Passages

Isaiah 7:14-"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Immanuel literally means "God with us").

Isaiah 9:6-"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end...."

Jeremiah 23:5-6-"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Christ's name in Hebrew is YHWH Tsidkenu, Jehovah Our Righteousness.

Malachi 3:1-2-"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap." God's temple is Christ's temple. Christ comes as an all-powerful judge.

Psalm 45:1, 6-7-"I speak of the things which I have made touching the king.... Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee...." The Hebrew word translated "anointed" is the verb form of the noun "Messiah."

By the by, you claim the title "Son of God" is one we share? The why did the rulers get so upset that He called Himself by that title? No, we are adopted sons...Christ is the real McCoy ...and the understanding of begetting is that he is made from the same 'stuff'...just like your 'stuff' is what makes up your children, Gods 'stuff' makes up Christ. Hence, He is devine. The analogy of the Sonship is clear...like begets like. Jesus comes from the Father, and hence, is of the same 'stuff'....

Next 'by the by'....there is only ONE God...not God, and gods....your NWT mistakes the distaste the writers of both the OT and NT had for 'gods', and make the distiction that these are purely false 'gods' or are beings that are far more powerful than man, hence are seen as 'gods'....but we know that there is only one, and therefore, there is no 'mighty god' and 'almighty God' since there is only one God, they are one and the same God!! You fall into a pretty big trap when you start to call Jesus a mighty god, and not the almighty God...since you claim there can be only one God period (which I agree with of course)

[NonTrinitarian]

nontrinitarian...here is a few OT passages for your review.

Old Testament Passages

Isaiah 7:14-"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Immanuel literally means "God with us").

Isaiah 9:6-"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end...."

Jeremiah 23:5-6-"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Christ's name in Hebrew is YHWH Tsidkenu, Jehovah Our Righteousness.

Malachi 3:1-2-"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap." God's temple is Christ's temple. Christ comes as an all-powerful judge.

Psalm 45:1, 6-7-"I speak of the things which I have made touching the king.... Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee...." The Hebrew word translated "anointed" is the verb form of the noun "Messiah."

By the by, you claim the title "Son of God" is one we share? The why did the rulers get so upset that He called Himself by that title? No, we are adopted sons...Christ is the real McCoy ...and the understanding of begetting is that he is made from the same 'stuff'...just like your 'stuff' is what makes up your children, Gods 'stuff' makes up Christ. Hence, He is devine. The analogy of the Sonship is clear...like begets like. Jesus comes from the Father, and hence, is of the same 'stuff'....

Next 'by the by'....there is only ONE God...not God, and gods....your NWT mistakes the distaste the writers of both the OT and NT had for 'gods', and make the distiction that these are purely false 'gods' or are beings that are far more powerful than man, hence are seen as 'gods'....but we know that there is only one, and therefore, there is no 'mighty god' and 'almighty God' since there is only one God, they are one and the same God!! You fall into a pretty big trap when you start to call Jesus a mighty god, and not the almighty God...since you claim there can be only one God period (which I agree with of course)

Eh, I put over a hundred verses just from the Gospels that I want you to answer first. You answer those (a few posts up), and I'll answer these. BTW, several of these have already been answered by myself here at TWeb. You can search to find them.

[One Bad Pig]

If by "explicitly" you mean a scholar who agrees with EVERY verse, I cannot. But then, if scholars agreed with the rendering of every verse in a Bible, we'd only have one translation. Each of the Bibles I listed earlier have scholars who agree with at least one verse in the NWT in regards to the Trinity.

I'll settle for a credentialed scholar who prefers the NWT over all other translations, then.

As far as Col 2:9, let me break it down for you a little more. Verse 9 says "because in him is dwelling all the fullness of the divinity (theotetos)". Now, however you want to translate that word, Godhead, divine qualities or chicken noodle soup is irrelevent. The reason is because verse 10 says "and you are in him filled". So whatever it is that fills the Christ fills us too.

If it doesn't make us God, it doesn't make him God.

You're basing your beliefs on an interpretation, and assuming that the two phrases are synonymous. They are not. We are filled with God (v. 10), but we are not fully God (v. 9).

[NonTrinitarian]

I'll settle for a credentialed scholar who prefers the NWT over all other translations, then.

Dr. Jason Beduhn

You're basing your beliefs on an interpretation, and assuming that the two phrases are synonymous. They are not. We are filled with God (v. 10), but we are not fully God (v. 9).

Your merely asserting they are not synominous is not convincing. I believe they are part of the same thing, first noting that the fullness dwells in Christ and then dwells in us. Furthermore, note Col 1:19-
"For God was pleased to have all of his fullness dwell in him[Christ]". Was Paul saying all the fullness of God was in Christ because Christ was God or that the fullness of God was in Christ because it pleased God [Note: a separate person from Christ] to have His fullness dwell in Christ. The New English Bible says it was "by God's own choice" that his fullness dwelt in Christ. Thus, far from proving Jesus is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him, we se all the fullness of God dwells in Christ only because it pleased God to do so. As the New Testament in Modern English states, "It was in him that the full nature of God chose to live." If God had to make a choice as to whether or not all His fullness would dwell in Jesus, then Jesus is obviously not God.

And of course, again, Eph 3:19 says we are filled up with the fullness of God. So if Christ is filled up with the fullness of God and we are filled up with the fullness of God, neither of us are God.

[twohumble]

Eh, I put over a hundred verses just from the Gospels that I want you to answer first. You answer those (a few posts up), and I'll answer these. BTW, several of these have already been answered by myself here at TWeb. You can search to find them.

I am interested in our discussion, not one you had with others. Your assertion about John 1:1 was very well rebutted on another thread...look it up.

I have answered the majority of your verses that dealth with "Son of God" issues, in my post. I am not at all interested in researching your posts on Tweb...thanks for the offer, but no.

Your verses are old and been there done that with them. Nothing new, and nothing insighful about them...very well explained in other posts. You can look them up.