Christ Alone said: "Here is a REAL Greek scholar [Dana Mantey] that talks about the New World Translation:"
This REAL Greek scholar has his own religious agenda to defend...in his case, a Baptist one with their own twisted fundamentalist views. I have seen his writings and WT criticisms, and own his Greek Grammar.
His Grammar is excellent, but his theological argumentations can easily be proven wrong by even other scholars of Evangelical persuasion. Thus, I can recommend his Grammar without hesitation, but not his anti-cult diatribes.
I have also seen the other video clip with the scholar and the one questioning him. Again, there are so many points the scholar skips in his argumentation against the NWT. It's what they don't tell you, or don't want you to know.
A common attack as seen in the video clip against the John 1:1 rendering (a god) is at least partially faulty, because they make assertions that are only valid within the strict Evangelical belief. To prove the NWT wrong at John 1:1, they often claim that the NWT is inconsistent with the way the Committee handles the indefinite article in translation. The problem is that the argument put forward is one the WTS have never claimed. They often quote Robert Countess for support for this NWT error. What they don't tell you is that Countess' argument is flawed. Even Robert Bowman Jr., a known WT critic, admits Countess exposition of the NWT NT is not fully accurate. Another clue of their intentions can be seen when they totally omit the fact that other scholars often side with the NWT renderings. They make it sound like only unlearned lunatics will come up with readings such as those found in the NWT. Not so.
A case in point, which happens to be discussed in this thread as well: It has to do with the way Bible translators deal with the Greek term proskyneo commonly translated "worship." No one will argue that the Greek word can, and should be translated as "worship." But if anyone claims that translating it as "render obeisance" or "doing "homage" in some contexts is wrong, then, that writer is not being totally honest. At most, you could say that the NWT is biased by choosing to render proskyneo differently when the reference is to Christ. Even so, that statement is subject to question, since someone could argue that Christ himself stated: "the Father is greater than I." Hence, proskyneo rendered to Christ could be understood as some Greek dictionaries define it, similarly as it appears in the NWT.
Another point missed by NWT critics is that the English word worship had a broader meaning in the days of KJV translators than it does today. Thus, the understanding of worship in the early days of English translations may have been closer to the meaning as defined in biblical reference works, rather than the common limited meaning attributed to the Greek term by mainstream churches.
