by nightwarrior 20 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • TheOldHippie

    Voyager replied to me: "Old Hippie:

    I appreciate your comment, but remember that the application still stands, that if you add or take away from scripture no matter how it applies, you are still breaking God's law. Are you seriosly going to make everyone believe out there, that you don't believe that the NWT has had additions or subtractions?

    If you do, they may think twice before reading anymore of your threads." My reply: Whether anyone does or does not read any of my threads or comments, does not interest me much. However, I repeat once more, that replacing God or Lord with Jehovah is something different from making additions to or subtractions from the text. What the original manuscripts used for God, if they wrote God or Lord or JHWH, neither you nor I know. Some scholars say this, others say that. Using the replacing of Lord with JHWH as an argument for the corruption of NWT is therefore invalid. Using additions or subtractions as an argument, is on the other hand something which one has to deal with and look upon as a valid argument.

  • funkyderek
    replacing God or Lord with Jehovah is something different from making additions to or subtractions from the text. What the original manuscripts used for God, if they wrote God or Lord or JHWH, neither you nor I know. Some scholars say this, others say that. Using the replacing of Lord with JHWH as an argument for the corruption of NWT is therefore invalid.

    But if the original manuscripts of the New Testament contained the divine name, and every single copy of the most ancient manuscripts that exist contain no trace of the name, doesn't that mean that the manuscripts we have are definitely inaccurate? If Jehovah inspired the bible and protected it from corruption as the Watchtower Society claims, how is it that the most important word in those manuscripts was completely removed? How can the rest of the text be viewed as reliable?

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    The New World Translation is inspired in the same sense as "Green Acres". It is so bad it achieves a certain kind of greatness. It is the epitome of Great Bad.

  • TheOldHippie

    THAT, fundyderek, is one great line of thought. And if the latest discoveries or textual analyses made by scholars whose names rarely hit the front pages, should prove for example that JHWH was used - then what about the people living in the 19th century, or earlier, or living in the 1930s or 50s or 60s, who never had the chance of appreciating exactly that? How can it be that God for example has chosen to make it public in 2003, thru the hands of a Dutch scholar? Why is it that the text was not left uncorrupted with JHWH or Kyrios all thru the centuries?

    Got to run, got to take care of my horses, but will definitely return to the topic .............

  • SixofNine

    You can trust me with your life on this: Not one word of any bible was inspired by God.

    Six- here's a quarter class

  • Earnest
    whom was credited with writing the gospels , Matthew / Mark/ Luke/ John / why the same said disciples.

    Who wrote the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION.? AS IT HAS NO AUTHOR,No one is brave enough to claim responsibility for this PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE.

    One moment, please. Who claimed responsibility for writing the gospels ? Have a look in your own copy of the Bible. No one claimed responsibility. True, they have been attributed to these four writers but in none of the gospels does the writer identify him/her self. So in this respect the translators of the NWT have imitated the example of those first gospel writers in not drawing attention to themselves.


  • Gamaliel


    It was already said, but I loved the way you phrased the argument. That might be the simplest and most direct way to get a JW to think about it. If they think about it, it might drop their haughtiness about their own translation/translators down a notch.


  • Gamaliel

    Just for the record, no one can see that I forgot to sign that last post "Gamaliel" and accidentally used some completely random name which is of course quite different from my real name.

    Where's my "edit" icon when I really need it, Simon?


  • hooberus

    Perhaps Revelation 17:8 in the NWT contains an "inspired warning" about the WTS itself !

    The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the foundation of the world." Revelation 17:8 NWT

    "We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President's idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble." Watch Tower February 15, 1919 p.51 reprints page 6389

  • back2dafront

    So who is correct, the JW's?:

    Violating a Rule?

    SOME claim, however, that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar published by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell back in 1933. He asserted that in Greek a predicate noun "has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have the [definite] article when it precedes the verb." By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article ("the") in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun (the·os'), the predicate, precedes the verb—"and [the·os'] was the Word." So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read "and [the] God was the Word."

    But consider just two examples found at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: "That one was a manslayer" and "he is a liar." Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns ("manslayer" and "liar") precede the verbs ("was" and "is") in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word "a" because Greek grammar and the context require it.—See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6.

    "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself."—Joseph Henry Thayer, Bible scholar

    Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: "It is indefinite ["a" or "an"] in this position only when the context demands it." So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure.

    Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God. Thus, not Colwell's questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And it is apparent from the many translations that insert the indefinite article "a" at John 1:1 and in other places that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does God's Word.

    Or the scholars:

    Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):

    "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"

    Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):

    "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."

    Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:

    "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"

    Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:

    "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

    Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California:

    "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

    Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:

    "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."

    Dr. Walter R. Martin (who did not teach Greek but has studied the language):

    "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."

    Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:

    "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

    Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:

    "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]

    Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:

    "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"

    Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:

    "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis."

    Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:

    "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."

    Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society:

    "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." [Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.]

    Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):

    "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."

    Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott):

    "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

Share this