Sunday, September 29, 2013

Luke 23:43 - Punctuation and the New World Translation; "Truly I tell you today,..."

On occasion, opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to attack the scholarship and honesty of the translators of the New World Translation Bible. One passage that is cited by them is Luke 23:43 and the issue concerns punctuation.

Addressing this issue, the late Dr. Julius Mantey, noted NT Greek scholar and strong trinitarian, allegedly wrote a powerful attack against the honesty and accuracy of the NWT. He complained of the NWT's "attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after `today' in Luke 23:43," when he knows better than anyone that none of the earliest manuscripts (up to the 9th century A.D.) originally had capitalization or punctuation! Later copyists have added punctuation wherever they felt it should be!

Just because a modern text writer decides where he wants the punctuation and capital-ization to be in his interpretation of the original text (as Westcott and Hort did for the text that is used by the NWT and Nestle did in the text used by the NASB, etc.) does not mean that is how the original Bible writer intended the meaning - as explained in the Kingdom Interlinear footnote for this verse.

For example, at John 8:58, most (if not all) text writers have left ego eimi uncapitalized. However, some respected trinitarian Bibles (such as NASB, TEV, and Phillips) have ignored the text writer's preference and used capitalization here in an attempt to make this verb appear to be a Name: "I AM."

Are these popular trinitarian Bibles also guilty of "deliberately deceiving," then, by miscapitalization?

Clearly, for Dr. Mantey to even hint that punctuation can be precisely determined at Luke 23:43 is totally dishonest. We see The Emphasized Bible by Joseph B. Rotherham also punctuating this Scripture to produce the meaning found in the NWT:

"Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise."

And the footnote for Luke 23:43 in Lamsa's translation admits:

"Ancient texts were not punctuated. The comma could come before or after today."

The Concordant Literal New Testament renders it: "43 And Jesus said to him, 'Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise.'"

2001 Translation – An American English Bible: 43 And [Jesus] replied, `I tell you this today; you will be with me in Paradise.'

A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament by E.W. Bullinger, DD., page 811 says:

"'And Jesus said to him, Verily, to thee I say this day, with Me shalt thou be in the Paradise.' The words today being made solemn and emphatic. Thus, instead of a remembrance, when He shall come in...His kingdom, He promises a presence in association (meta, 'with') Himself. And this promise he makes on that very day when he was dying.... Thus we are saved (1) the trouble of explaining why Jesus did not answer the question on its own terms; and (2) the inconvenience of endorsing the punctuation of the [KJV] as inspired; and we also place this passage in harmony with numberless passages in the O.T., such as 'Verily I say unto you this day,' etc.; 'I testify unto you this day.' etc. Deut.vi.6; vii.1; x.13; xi.8;,13,23; xii.13; xix.9; xxvii.4; xxxi.2, etc., where the Septuagint corresponds to Luke xxii.43."

Yes, there is no reason to deny the rendering of Luke 23:43 as, "I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise."

............................................

A couple examples from the Hebrew Scriptures of the OT in modern Bibles:

(NKJV) Deuteronomy 30:18 "I announce to you today that you shall surely perish"

(NASB) Deuteronomy 30:18 I declare to you today that you shall surely perish.

(RSV) Deuteronomy 30:18 "I declare to you this day, that you shall perish"

(God's Word) Deuteronomy 30:18 "If you do, I tell you today that you will certainly be destroyed"

(MKJV (Green)) Deuteronomy 30:18 "I declare to you today that you shall surely perish"

.........................................

(NASB) Zechariah 9:12 "Return to the stronghold, O prisoners who have the hope; This very day I am declaring that I will restore double to you."

(KJV) "even to day do I declare [that] I will render double unto thee;" (TEV) "Now I tell you that I will repay you twice over"

(RSV) "today I declare that I will restore to you double."

(JPS) "even to-day do I declare that I will render double unto thee"

(BBE) "today I say to you that I will give you back twice as much"

(God'sWord) "Today I tell you that I will return to you double blessings."

(CEV) "because today I will reward you with twice what you had."

(NJB) "This very day, I vow, I shall make it up to you twice over."

(NAB) "This very day, I will return you double for your exile."

[Also compare Deut. 5:1 and 6:6]

For much more, see:

What is the Paradise that Jesus promised to the evildoer who died alongside him? (Insight-2 pp. 574-577; Watchtower Online Library)

Earthly Resurrection (Insight-2 pp. 783-793; Watchtower Online Library)


Luke 23:43 and the New World Translation (Search For Bible Truths)

What About...Luke 23:43? (From God's Word)

Luke 23:43 (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)
 
Luke 23:43 (Jehovah's Witnesses United; Scroll Down to Second Letter)  
 
Luke 23:43 - The Greek adverb which is rendered in English “today” in relation to its verb in Biblical Greek when found in Direct Discourse (Scriptural Truths)

Jehovah's Witnesses: Is It True That You Place Punctuation In Your NWT To Support Your Own Teachings? (Y/A)

Monday, September 16, 2013

Why Does the New World Translation Use the Word “Impaled” where Most Bible Translations Say Christ Was “Crucified”?

Most Bible translations say Christ was “crucified” rather than “impaled.” This is because of the common belief that the torture instrument upon which he was hung was a “cross” made of two pieces of wood instead of a single pale, or stake. Tradition, not the Scriptures, also says that the condemned man carried only the crossbeam of the cross, called the patibulum, or antenna, instead of both parts. In this way some try to avoid the predicament of having too much weight for one man to drag or carry to Golgotha.

Yet, what did the Bible writers themselves say about these matters? They used the Greek noun stau·ros′ 27 times and the verbs stau·ro′o 46 times, syn·stau·ro′o (the prefix syn, meaning “with”) 5 times, and a·na·stau·ro′o (a·na′, meaning “again”) once. They also used the Greek word xy′lon, meaning “wood,” 5 times to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed.

Stau·ros′ in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a “cross” made of two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile, or pole, as might be used for a fence, stockade, or palisade. Says Douglas’ New Bible Dictionary of 1985 under “Cross,” page 253: “The Gk. word for ‘cross’ (stauros; verb stauroo . . . ) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an instrument for punishment and execution.”

The fact that Luke, Peter, and Paul also used xy′lon as a synonym for stau·ros′ gives added evidence that Jesus was impaled on an upright stake without a crossbeam, for that is what xy′lon in this special sense means. (Ac 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Ga 3:13; 1Pe 2:24) Xy′lon also occurs in the Greek Septuagint at Ezra 6:11, where it speaks of a single beam or timber on which a lawbreaker was to be impaled.
The New World Translation, therefore, faithfully conveys to the reader this basic idea of the Greek text by rendering stau·ros′ as “torture stake,” and the verb stau·ro′o as “impale,” that is, to fasten on a stake, or pole. In this way there is no confusion of stau·ros′ with the traditional ecclesiastical crosses. (See TORTURE STAKE.) The matter of one man like Simon of Cyrene bearing a torture stake, as the Scriptures say, is perfectly reasonable, for if it was 15 cm (6 in.) in diameter and 3.5 m (11 ft) long, it probably weighed little more than 45 kg (100 lb).—Mr 15:21.

Note what W. E. Vine says on this subject: “STAUROS (σταυρός) denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.” Greek scholar Vine then mentions the Chaldean origin of the two-piece cross and how it was adopted from the pagans by Christendom in the third century C.E. as a symbol of Christ’s impalement.—Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 1, p. 256. - IMPALEMENT; What does the original Greek reveal as to the shape of the instrument on which Jesus was put to death?; Insight-1 pp. 1190-1192

For more, see:

CROSS - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)

Cross (Search Results From the Watchtower Online Library)

What does the original Greek reveal as to the shape of the instrument on which Jesus was put to death? (Insight-1 pp. 1190-1192; Watchtower Online Library)

TORTURE STAKE  (Insight-2 pp. 1116-1117; Watchtower Online Library)

Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Believe that Jesus Died Upon A Cross? (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

STAUROS - "Cross" or "Torture Stake"? (Search For Bible Truths)

Stauros / Torture Stake (Response to accusations made by Robert H. Countess) (Defending the New World Translation)

Extracts from HISTORY OF THE CROSS: THE PAGAN ORIGIN AND IDOLATROUS ADOPTION AND WORSHIP, OF THE IMAGE. BY HENRY DANA WARD, M.A., U.S.A. 1871 (In Defense of the New World Translation)

The STAUROS of the New Testament: Cross or Stake? (In Defense of the New World Translation)

Cross or Stake (Stauros) (Pastor Russel)

What does the original Greek reveal as to the shape of the instrument on which Jesus was put to death? (Jehovah's Witnesses Question and Answers)

Advantages of the New World Translation: Did Jesus Die on a Cross? (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

If Jesus was nailed to a tree with his hands above his head then why does John 20:25 say nailS? (Y/A; Esp. Bar Anerges' response);

"Jesus did not die on cross, says scholar" (News article from Telegraph.co.uk)

NWT - Criticism by Zondervan's So Many Versions? - "Torture Stake" vs. "Cross" (Defending the NWT)

Quotes concerning the pagan history of the Cross (Search For Bible Truths)

Should the Cross be venerated? (Jehovah's Witnesses Question and Answers)

Does it matter if Jesus died on a cross? (Search For Bible Truths)

The Sign of the Cross (Pastor Russel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Why Does the New World Translation Bible Say, "God's Active Force" at Genesis 1:2?

In the New World Translation (NWT) Bible, it says at Genesis 1:2,

"Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."

Yet many translations do not say "God's active force" at Genesis 1:2.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1-2-compare.html

However, the New World Translation's "active force" for the Hebrew RUACH is both accurate and appropriate for Genesis 1:2 because the way that the Bible uses the term "holy spirit" indicates that it is God's active force that He uses to accomplish a variety of His purposes.

Even many trinitarian scholars will admit this:

"In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of the Trinity. The Spirit is conceived as an impersonal power by which God effects his will through Christ." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 344, Virgilius Ferm, 1945 ed.

Using Genesis 1:2; Job 33:4 and Psalm 33:6 as its basis, Swete writes about the "Spirit" in the Old Testament:

"The Spirit of God is the vital power which belongs to the Divine Being, and is seen to be operative in the world and in men. It is the Divine Energy which is the origin of all created life, especially of human existence and the faculties of human nature." Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament (1909), page 2.

The commentator clearly sees the Spirit as a force, not a person in this verse.

About the translation of Genesis 1:2:

"There is little to commend "a mighty wind" (NEB, Speiser, von Rad); in the relatively few passages where "God" is used as a superlative, the context usually makes it clear. The sense is excellently given by "the power of God" (GNB)." A Bible Commentary for Today, General Editor G. C. D. Howley (1973), page 135.

Note that this Commentary states, "The sense is excellently given by "the power of God" (GNB)."

"There is apparent a development in the direction of hypostatization of the Spirit, not in the sense that it is conceived as a person but as a substantial source of force and activity. It is the creative force of Yahweh (Gn. 1:2; Jb 33:5)" Dictionary of the Bible, McKenzie (1965), page 841.

This Bible Dictionary agrees with the NWT that in Genesis 1:2, the Spirit is the "creative force of Yahweh."

"The Spirit brooding over the primeval waters (Gn. 1:2) and creating man (Gn. 2:7), the Spirit who garnishes the heavens (Jb 26:13), sustains animal life and renews the face of the earth (Ps. 54:30), is the ruah ('breath,' 'wind') of God, the outgoing divine energy and power." The New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas (1962), page 531.

The ruach is not a person, the basic meaning in Genesis 1:2 (and the other scriptures quoted) is shown to be "the outgoing divine energy and power."

Additional Reading:

Genesis 1:2 New World Translation - "..and God's active force was moving to and fro..." (In Defense of the New World Translation)

Holy Spirit - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

The Holy Spirit—God's Active Force (Insight-2 pp. 1017-1027; Watchtower Online Library)

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Is the New World Translation the only Bible to phrase John 1:1c as "the Word was A God"?

"Is the New World Translation the only Bible to phrase John 1:1c as "the Word was *a* God"?"

Consider the following:

1808: “and the word was a god.” - The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: “and a god was the word.” - The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” - La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: “and the Word was divine.” - The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” - Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1958: “and the Word was a God.” - The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

Even Origen, the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word [logos] was a god". - "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.

Jehovah's Witnesses have been criticized for allowing the indefinite article (a) at John 1:1c. However, the true fault lies with their critics. It is the other way around...the absence of the indefinite article at John 1:1c has been purposely mistranslated in most Trinitarian-produced Bibles to fit their doctrine that Jesus is God.

For much more concerning John 1:1, see:

John 1:1 (Links to Information) (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Addressing The Claim That The New World Translation is "Biased"

Some have made claims similar to the quote found in p. 65, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses, Baker Book House, 1991, that, "the NWT is filled with faulty translations designed to make the Bible fit Jehovah's Witness doctrine. It is therefore legitimate to say ... that the NWT is doctrinally biased."

Ususally what many of these opposers apparently mean by "doctrinally biased" is that the NWT translates passages that may have more than one possible interpretation in a way that does not support the trinity doctrine (or certain other "orthodox" doctrines of modern Christendom). Just because they support some of these doctrines (particularly the trinity doctrine) does not make them true. Jehovah's Witnesses have determined through proper, honest scholarship that a number of these teachings are actually unscriptural additions by scholars and philosophers made hundreds of years after the deaths of Christ and his Apostles. - See the HIST; CREEDS; ISRAEL; IMAGE; etc. study papers.

For Jehovah's Witnesses to choose honest alternate translations and interpretations which refute these unscriptural doctrinal additions or questionable translations may make them biased, in a sense, but it certainly does not make them dishonest or guilty of "faulty translations"!

Being "biased" does not necessarily make a person dishonest or unscholarly. Being biased against illegal drug usage and drug pushers does not make you a villain. Being biased against abortion or biased against having children out of wedlock or adultery, etc., does not automatically make you wrong, dishonest, unscholarly, or evil! We are all biased in many ways and often in good, proper ways.

All Bibles are doctrinally biased in their translations. For example, it is doubtful that you will easily find one for sale today which is not strongly biased toward a trinity doctrine. That is, when more than one honest rendering exists for a particular verse, these Bibles will purposely choose the one which best presents evidence for a trinity. This is solely because of the tradition of a three-persons-in-one-God trinity doctrine which was officially begun by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century A. D. (hundreds of years after the deaths of Christ, his Apostles, and the inspired Bible writers) and continues down to today in 99% of the churches of Christendom.

This trinitarian doctrinal bias is not based on proper Scriptural evidence (see the IMAGE; PRIMER; I-AM; etc. study papers). It is not based on proper historical evidence (see ISRAEL; HIST; and CREEDS study papers). It is not just "doctrinal bias," it is unsupported doctrinal bias.

So for the NWT to be virtually the only Bible to be consistently translated with its properly-supported bias for a single-person God is certainly not dishonest or false!

Additional Reading:
Is The New World Translation Biased and Unscholarly? (In Defense of the NWT)

Robert Hommel's Comments on the New World Translation (Bible Translation and Study)

Index of Links and Pages that Defend the New World Translation (Defending the NWT)

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Why was the New World Translation Bible Printed, and How Accurate is it?

Why was the New World Translation Bible Printed?

There were several reasons why the NWT was printed:

1) Most of the other translations used were made by those who were influenced by the pagan philosophies and unscriptural traditions that their religious systems had passed down from long ago as well as other influences,

2) Older and more reliable Bible manuscripts were becoming available,

3) As a result of archaeological discoveries, the Greek language of the first century was becoming more clearly understood, and

4) The languages into which translations are made undergo changes over the years. (For instance, who today really talks like this?: "And he commanded the foremost, saying, When Esau my brother meeteth thee, and asketh thee, saying, Whose art thou? and whither goest thou? and whose are these before thee?" - Gen. 32:17; KJV)

Jehovah's Witnesses wanted a translation that was of the latest scholarship, one that was without spot by creeds or traditions, a literal translation that faithfully presented what is in the original writings and a translation that would be clear and understandable to modern-day readers. (Read the New World Translation Bible online.)

How Accurate is The New World Translation?

Concerning it's accuracy, the New World Translation has been found to be "one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available" and is "the most accurate of the [8 major] translations compared." -Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona

The comments made by Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel can be found by clicking on the link below:
http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2009/09/nwt_7717.html

Recommended Links to Information and Quotes Praising and Supporting the New World Translation: Scholarly Quotes on the New World Translation (From God's Word)
Advantages of the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses United)
Advantages of the NWT (In Defense of the NWT)
The New World Translation (Pastor Russell)

Accusations Against The New World Translation Hypocritical 

Some have hypocritically accused the New World Translation Bible of inaccuracies, bias, and written by those with poor credentials. When, in reality, what kind of credentials do the writers of most every other modern Bible have? And yet these copyists allowed the insertion the title "LORD" instead of the divine name in most of the nearly SEVEN THOUSAND instances in their 'translation' of the Hebrew Scriptures. Not only is this inaccurate, but it is a purposeful, blatant misuse of God's Name! (Ex. 20:7) The NWT is accurate in that it uses God's Name in all instances found in Scripture. (Also see "Jehovah" in The New Testament; Search For Bible Truths)

Also, (unlike the NWT) most of these other translations used were made by those who were influenced by the pagan philosophies and unscriptural traditions that their religious systems had passed down from long ago as well as other influences. For just one instance, the majority of Bible scholars (including Trinitarian ones) freely admit that 1 John 5:7 in the King James Version is spurious. But Trinitarian scholars and copyists felt compelled to ADD it to the Holy Scriptures because of their trinitarian biases.
(Also see: How Can You Choose a Good Bible Translation?; w08 5/1 pp. 18-22; Watchtower Online Library)

For more, see:

Index of Links and Pages that Defend the New World Translation (Defending The New World Translation)

NWT FAQs (Defending The New World Translation) 

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Why does the NWT at Col. 2:9 state that in Jesus "all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily," when other translations say, "dwells the fullness of Deity/Godhead?'"

The following is an excerpt from the Watchtower, August 1st, 1962, pages 479, 480 (WTB&TS):

"At Colossians 2:9 the word in the Greek that the New World Translation renders "divine quality" is theótes, and this is the only use of the word in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The same is true of a similar Greek word, theiótes, which appears only at Romans 1:20, and which the New World Translation there renders "Godship," as follows: "For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."The way these two words have been rendered in the New World Translation has given rise to the charge that the New World Bible Translation Committee let their religious beliefs influence them. That charge is true, but they did not do so wrongly, or unduly. The meaning that is to be given to these two Greek words depends upon what the entire Bible has to say about Jehovah God and Jesus Christ.

"How so? In that there is basis for translating these words either as "Deity," "Divinity" or "Godhead" and so attributing personality to them, or as "Divine Nature," "divine quality," "Godship," and having them merely denote qualities. Thus those who believe in the trinity will attach personality to these words, whereas those who do not will render them as qualities in view of the way God and Christ are described in the Scriptures and so as to harmonize the words with the rest of God's Word. This emphasizes the fact that one simply cannot properly and accurately translate the Bible unless one clearly understands its teachings.

"That the New World Bible Translation Committee were perfectly right in rendering these words the way they did is apparent from what Greek authorities have to say about them. Thus Parkhurst's A Greek and English Lexicon (1845) defines theiótes as "Godhead" (page 261) and theótes as "Deity, godhead, divine nature" (page 264). Note the definition "divine nature" as well as "Godhead."

"Liddell and Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition, completed in 1940 and reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines the two terms in the light of ancient usages apart from the Scriptures. Theiótes it defines as "divine nature, divinity" (page 788). Theótes it defines in exactly the same way, as "divinity, divine nature," and then cites as an example Colossians 2:9. In this connection it shows that the similar Greek expression, dia theóteta, means "for religious reasons" (page 792).

"Thus the New World Translation is fully justified in rendering Colossians 2:9 to show that Christ has in him all the fullness, not of God himself, the Deity, the Godhead, but of the divine quality dwelling bodily, and this in behalf of the spiritual body of Christ, so that this body of Christ's followers is possessed of a fullness by means of him: "It is in [Christ] that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so you [Christians] are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority." - Col. 2:9, 10.

"It is also of interest to note that both Weymouth and An American Translation render the passage, "the fullness of God's nature."

"To get an objective view of the matter, in exploring questions such as these it is best to use the nonsectarian and nonreligious Hebrew-English and Greek-English dictionaries, instead of those that have been produced by some religious denomination."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is an excerpt from the two volume encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures (WTB&TS):

"Then, at Colossians 2:9 the apostle Paul says that in Christ "all the fullness of the divine quality [form of the·o´tes] dwells bodily." Here, again, some translations read "Godhead" or "deity," which Trinitarians interpret to mean that God personally dwells in Christ. (KJ, NE, RS, NAB) However, Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon defines the·o´tes in basically the same way it does thei·o´tes, as meaning "divinity, divine nature." (P. 792) The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as "divinity." Thus, here too, there is a solid basis for rendering thei·o´tes as referring to quality, not personality.

A consideration of the context of Colossians 2:9 clearly shows that having "divinity," or "divine nature," does not make Christ the same as God the Almighty. In the preceding chapter, Paul says: "God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." (Col 1:19) Thus, all fullness dwells in Christ because it "pleased the Father" (KJ, Dy), because it was "by God's own choice." (NE) So the fullness of "divinity" that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father. Further showing that having such "fullness" does not make Christ the same person as Almighty God is the fact that Paul later speaks of Christ as being "seated at the right hand of God."-Col 3:1.

Considering the immediate context of Colossians 2:9, it is noted that in verse 8, Christians are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human tradition. They are also told that "carefully concealed in [Christ] are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge," and they are urged to "go on walking in union with him, rooted and being built up in him and being stabilized in the faith." (Col 2:3, 6, 7) In addition, verses 13 to 15 explain that they are made alive through faith, being released from the Law covenant. Paul's argument, therefore, is that Christians do not need the Law (which was removed by means of Christ) or human philosophy and tradition. They have all they need, a precious "fullness," in Christ. -Col 2:10-12." (Vol. 1, page 629)

For MUCH more, see:
Does Col. 2:9 prove that Jesus is God? (SFBT)

Col. 2:9 - "Fulness of Deity" (Examining the Trinity)

"Theotes simply does not literally mean "godhead," and the use of "godhead" by the KJV translators was not intended as some would understand it today..." (JWQ&A)

"The Fullness of the Divine Quality" in Colossians 2:9 (Bible Translation and Study)

Defending the New World Translation Index (Defending the New World Translation)