You picked the nonexsistant "D" because to pick any of the other 3 you would have to admit you and the WT are wrong and having been lying and misrepresenting yourselves. You're not fooling anyone Alice.
And I think this is hilarious:
Get some understanding on the fallacy of quoting out of context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context Fallacy of quoting out of context
The WT has made quoting out of context a fine art. Every quote they publish is out of context. What kills them is now folks can go back, google a quote, and find out what was really said and compare how the WT tries to twist it to fit in with their dishonest crap.
Case in point:
The Watchtower Society and Johannes Greber
During the 1960s and 1970s, the Watchtower Society occasionally used the translation of the New Testament by Johannes Greber to support their similar renderings of John 1:1 and Matthew 27:52,53. In 1983 they officially stopped using his translation because of its "close rapport with spiritism." The information that Geber Was a Spiritist Was readily available to the Society's writers. In 1955 and 1956 the Society's writers themselves wrote of Greber's spiritism. Their use of Greber's translation to support their New World Translation and their explanations for it is evidence of shallow scholarship.
Johannes Greber was a Catholic priest turned spiritist who translated the New Testament "with the help of God's spirits." His experiences with spirits and their communications with him are related in his book, Communication With the Spirit World published in 1932. (See previous article)
Greber's translation reads similarly to the New World Translation at Jn. 1:1 and Matt. 27:52,53. The Society quoted and referred to it in support of their controversial renderings of these verses in material they published from 1961 to 1976.
The Society Quotes Greber
The Society's much disputed translation of Jn. 1:1 is "the Word was a god" in clause c. Since this translation is usually considered "tendentious" or even impossible by recognized scholars, the Society has sought support for this rendering in lesser known, and in some cases, obscure sources. They have, for example, quoted Johannes Greber's and John S. Thompson's translation that render it in the same manner. Both individuals apparently received this translation from spirits. 
The Society quoted Greber's translation of Jn. 1:1 as if he was a noteworthy Greek scholar or authority in their publications The Word--Who Is He According to John, 1962, p. 5; The Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1962, p. 554; Make Sure of all Things, 1965, p. 489, and Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, p. 1669.
Greber's New Testament translation was also used by the Society in support of their unusual translation of Matt. 27:52,53. These verses describe an apparent resurrection at the time of Jesus' death. Most translations render these verses much like the NIV which has:
The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
The early church Father Ignatious apparently referred to a resurrection of some Old Testament "holy people" at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection that were seen in Jerusalem.  However, only Matthew's gospel records such an event in the Bible and the grammar of the Greek text here is somewhat ambiguous. Both the Society's and Greber's translations of these verses state that instead of a resurrection (neither believe in a bodily resurrection) there was simply a projection of dead bodies out of their graves as a result of the earthquake that accompanied Jesus' death and these dead bodies were thereafter seen by others who passed by on their way into Jerusalem.
They quoted Greber's translation of these verses to support their similar translation in The Watchtower, Jan. 1, 1961, p. 30; Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, p. 1134; The Watchtower, Oct. 15, 1975, p. 640, and The Watchtower, April 15, 1976, p. 231. http://www.seanet.com/~raines/wtgreber.html
One more cut and paste that clearly outlines the WT's dishonesty in using quotes out of context (Please forgive me )
Mantey and Barclay Letters to the Watchtower (with comments from Paul Thompson) In the past the Watchtower used Professor Julius Mantey's Greek Grammar Text to support their interpretation of John 1:1. The following is a copy of a letter sent by Professor Mantey to the Watchtower Society in regards to their misquoting him. Dear Sirs: I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar. (1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1:1," There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1. A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the trinity. B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language. C. You quotation from p. 148 (3) was a paragraph under the heading: "With the subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur here to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples." But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the trinity may be implied ;in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. On pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article, theos signifies divine essence...'theos en ho logos' emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature." Our interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and TED: "What God was, the Word was"; and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," which you quoted in you letter to Caris. (2) Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering. (3) Your quotation of Colwell's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the abcence of the article." (4) Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or character of the subject. He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark. Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended that gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John 1:1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god." Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them. (5) Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book." We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their heretical beliefs. For example the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58, the addition of "for all time" in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament support is. The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes kriseos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as the "creator of all things" (John 1:2) and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived a human body on earth. Your quotation of "The father is greater than I am, (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil 2:6-8. When Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven. Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in you KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) - "Today you will be with me in Paradise." 2 Cor 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the Lord." These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death, which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection. (Ps. 23:6 and Heb 1:10) The afore mentioned are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of Gods Word. In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on. Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule." On the page before the preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved - no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher." If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it. If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences. Regretfully yours, Julius R. Mantey --Comments by Paul Thompson--- To my knowledge the Watchtower never published any apology in the Watchtower magazine, nor any of its publications. If I am mistaken I am now requesting any Jehovah Witness to copy that apology and post it in the message section for my examination. If anyone is interested I also have a letter written by William Barclay whom they also quoted out of context in the Watchtower of 5\15\77 p. 319,320. I have room here and the letter is short so I will include it anyway!