Defending The New World Translation

Rev. 3:14 - Does 'Arkhe' Mean "Beginning" or Does it Mean "Origin" or "Source"?

2012-02-07T13:45:00.001-08:00

As the following will show, the Watchtower Society is correct when it says that when Jesus called himself "the beginning [Greek – arkhe/arche, arch] of the creation of God" - Rev. 3:14, KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, MLB, Douay, Byington, Rotherham, Lattimore, Lamsa, Phillips, Darby, Webster, etc. - he meant "the first thing created by God."

Some trinitarians, however, insist that the word arkhe (sometimes written in English as arche) here does not mean "beginning" but should be rendered "source" or "origin." (For an examination of the mistranslation for this word as "Ruler" here, see the Beginning, Wisdom, Firstborn study, starting with par. #4.)

So the real question is: Do the writers of the New Testament ever use arkhe to mean "source" or "origin"? And, more importantly, since John wrote Rev. 3:14, does John ever use arkhe to mean "source," "origin," or "ruler"?

The only NT word John has used when he intended the meaning of "beginning" is arkhe. (The only apparent exception to this is archomai (arkhomai) found at John 8:9 - see p. 139 in the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. However, even trinitarian scholars admit that this verse is spurious, not written by John but added by a later copyist! - [Jn 9:32 should be more literally translated "from of old".])

To say that John meant "origin" or "source" when he used arkhe at Rev. 3:14 ignores two important facts:

(1) Nowhere else does John use arkhe as "source," "origin," or "beginner."[See footnote #4] In the 23 times it is found in the writings of John (in the text used by the King James translators), it is always understood in the sense of "beginning" and is always so translated in the KJV. (And every time arkhe is found in the writings of John - 21 times in the text used by the NASB - it is also always translated "beginning" in that most-respected trinitarian Bible.) Here are all the uses of arkhe by John according to Young's Analytical Concordance: John 1:1; 1:2; 2:11; 6:64; 8:25; 8:44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7 (twice in KJV); 2:13; 2:14; 2:24 (twice); 3:8; 3:11; 2 John 5, 6; Rev.1:8 (KJV); 3:14; 21:6; and 22:13. Notice that the ASV, RSV, etc. also translate these as "beginning" or "first" (in time).

John consistently used arkhe to mean only "beginning." Since it is John's writing we are concerned with at Rev. 3:14, this is of utmost importance.[See footnote #5]

(2) If John had really intended to use a word for "origin," "source," or "beginner," he could have easily done so. As we will see later, there would have been no reason to use a word that he consistently and frequently used to mean only "beginning."

The Expositor's Greek Testament (trinitarian, of course) tells us that to understand Rev. 3:14 as meaning that Jesus is "the active source" of creation, instead of the first created person, one must interpret arkhe "as in Greek philosophy and Jewish wisdom-literature, = aitia or origin."

Isn't it odd that the Greek word actually used for this philosophical concept is aitia which can honestly mean "cause" or "source"? If the word actually used is aitia, why must one interpret arkhe with a similar meaning? Why wouldn't John have simply used the word aitia if that's what he intended?

The trinitarian theologian Albert Barnes says concerning the NT Greek word arkhe:

"The word properly refers to the commencement of a thing, not its authorship, and denotes properly primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist.... the word is not, therefore, found in the sense of authorship, as denoting that one is the beginning of anything in the sense that he caused it to have an existence." - Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, p. 1569. [See footnote #6]

We also see the highly respected BDAG admits the same for the use of arkhe (or arche) in Rev. 3:14.[See footnote #7]

Although there are other words which (more appropriately than arkhe) may be properly translated "source," "cause," "origin," etc., there is one word which is most frequently so used throughout the Bible in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. This word emphasizes the strong Biblical comparison between "creation" and "procreation." (E.g., "brought forth" at Ps. 90:2 is "begotten" in the original Hebrew and is paralleled here with "gave birth to the earth" - NASB.)

Only the Father is the Source of Creation

It is because of this common Bible metaphor that "father" was considered as synonymous (whether as "creator" or "procreator") with "source"! - See p. 190, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1984.

The famous Biblical Hebrew authority, Gesenius, tells us that "Father" means:

"Of the author, or maker, of anything, specially of the creator.... And in this sense God is said to be `the father of men,' Is. 63:16; 64:8; [etc.]. All these ... come from the notion of origin." - p. 2, Gesenius' Lexicon.

Trinitarian Robert Young in his Young's Analytical Concordance, p. 331, also shows this meaning for the Hebrew word ab, " ! : "Father, ancestor, source, inventor."[See footnote #8]

God's people have used "Father" synonymously with "source" or "origin" for thousands of years. When they wanted to use a word that denotes absolute "source" they most often used "Father."[See footnote #9] Obviously the Son is not the "source of creation" - his Father is! (And what could be more appropriate than the Father's very first creation being called his "Firstborn Son"?)

So John's (and Jesus' and all Bible writers') repeated use of the term "Father" for God stresses over and over that Jesus' Father (and our Father) is the ultimate source who, because of his will (Rev. 4:11) and his spoken command (Ps. 33:6, 8, 9; Ps. 148:5) caused (originated) all things to be made through the obedient efforts of his Firstborn Son, Jesus.

So we can see that the Father alone is the source and his first creation (the only direct creation by Him), His only-begotten son, is the channel through whom he caused all the rest of creation to be. "His son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through [dia] whom he made the world." - Heb. 1:2. "All things came into being through [dia] him.... The world was made through [dia] him" - John 1:3,10.

Notice how the strongly trinitarian NT Greek experts, Dana and Mantey, explain this scripture:

"`All things were made through him.' Jn 1:3. Here God the Father is thought of as the original cause of creation, and the logos [Jesus] as the intermediate agent." - p. 162, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.

"For us there is but one God, the Father [compare John 17:1, 3], from [ex or ek, literally: `out of'] whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through [dia] whom are all things, and we exist through [dia] him." - 1 Cor. 8:6. Concerning this very scripture even the highly trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology has to admit:

"in 1 Cor. 8:6 the function of God the Father as the SOURCE of creation is distinguished from Christ's role as mediator of creation." - p. 1182, Vol. 3.

Also see The NIV Study Bible footnote for 1 Cor. 8:6:

"See Heb 2:10. God the Father is the ultimate Source of all creation (Ac 4:24)."

The Encyclopedia of Religion states:

"God the Father is source of all that is (pantokrator) and also the father of Jesus Christ" - 1987, Vol. 15, p. 54.

It should be obvious to all that, if the Father is the source of creation and Jesus is the intermediate agent, then Rev. 3:14 cannot be calling Jesus the "source" or "origin" of creation!

For more, see:

NWT - Rev. 3:14 (Defending the NWT)

BWF - 'Beginning,' 'Wisdom,' and 'Firstborn' (Examining the Trinity)

Revelation 3:14 "...the beginning of the creation by God." (INDNWT)

"What Have Jehovah's Witnesses Witnessed?" - Where Does the Name "Jehovah's Witnesses" Come From?

2011-08-20T08:00:00.000-07:00

Many people who wish to ridicule Jehovah's Witnesses often resort to asking the same old, childish question: "What Have Jehovah's Witnesses Witnessed?"

However, this question may prompt some to consider a legitimate and somewhat related question, "Where Does the Name "Jehovah's Witnesses" Come From?"

The key here is to understand exactly what "witness" means in this context.

According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, "the concept of witness [is used] both in the sense of witness to ascertainable facts and also in that of witness to truths, i.e., the making known and confessing of convictions." So a witness relates facts from direct personal knowledge, or he proclaims views or truths of which he is convinced.

So a "Witness" is someone that speaks publically about what he knows to be true. Of course no human has ever literally seen God (John 1:18), but Jehovah's Witnesses realize that God has asked his faithful servants to be His Witnesses and to tell others about Him:

"Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen;" (Isa. 43:10) - ASV

Isa. 43:10 also corresponds with Acts 15:14 where it says that God will turn "his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name." (NWT)

According to the Bible, the line of Witnesses of Jehovah reaches back to faithful Abel. Hebrews 11:4-12:1 mentions this line as a "great a cloud of WITNESSES surrounding us."

The Bible says that Jesus Christ was the foremost witness of Jehovah: "These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God." (Rev. 3:14) Considering the definition of "witness" mentioned above, Jesus said that it was his Father's name that he made manifest. (John 17:6)

For more, see:
How We Came to Be Known as Jehovah’s Witnesses (Pastor Russell)

Why are you called "Jehovah's Witnesses"? (JWitness Forum)

Why does the New World Translation 'add' the words, within square brackets, "the angel of" at Zechariah 3:2?

2011-08-10T12:19:00.000-07:00

All Bible translations add words to make the intended meaning of the original language clear to the readers of another language. Some Bibles indicate the added words in footnotes. Some, like the King James Version, frequently signifies these additions by italicizing such added words. The New World Translation usually indicates added words with brackets [ ].

In the case of Zechariah 3:2, the New World Translation is not the only Bible to add "the angel of" or its equivalent here.

A New Commentary on Holy Scripture explains their reason why:

"[v]2. the Lord. Read the angel of the Lord, as the speech that follows seems to require."- SPCK, London, reprint 1946 (1st pub.1928).

Another footnote, this one belonging to The Revised English Bible (1989) reveals why it reads at Zechariah 3:2 "The angel said to Satan." The footnote states: "3:2 angel: prob[able] r[ea]d[in]g, so Syriac; Heb[rew] LORD." (Additions in square brackets aim to aid in better understanding.)

This is similiar to what we can read in the footnote to this verse in the Reference Edition of the New World Translation (1984): "2* "The angel (messenger) of Jehovah," Sy[riac]; MLXXVg, "Jehovah."
-----------------------------------------

Other translations that render this passage the same way as the New World Translation:

"The angel of the Lord said to Satan," (Good News Translation)

"The angel of Yahweh said to Satan," (The Jerusalem Bible; Scroll down)
"And the angel of the LORD..." (New American Bible)

"The LORD rebuke you," the Angel of the LORD said..." (The Holy Bible, An American Translation; W.F. Beck)
"The messenger of Yahweh..." (vs.1) (The Emphasised Bible; J. B. Rotherham)
"Then [the messenger] of Jehovah..." (2001 Translation – An American English Bible)

"So the angel of the LORD said...." (The Bible, An American Translation; Powis-Smith and Goodspeed)

Translation and revision of Lev 23:21 proves that the NWT translators DID know Hebrew

2011-05-31T11:18:00.001-07:00

Some JW critics claim that the NWT wasn't translated from the Hebrew and Greek, but was just a revision of other English Bibles such as the KJV, ASV, and Rotherham.

However, a mistranslation that occurred in the first volume of the 1953 New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures helps to demonstrate that the translators did indeed know Hebrew.

The NWT is the only Bible translation to have "Jehovah" in Lev 23:21.

In 1953, The first volume of the NWT of the Hebrew Scriptures was published, which had Leviticus 23:21 read:

"And you must proclaim on this very day Jehovah's holy convention for yourselves."

This stood for 26 years, when it was changed to:

"And you must make a proclamation on this very day; there will be a holy convention for yourselves."

Lev. 23:21 has יהיה ("there will be") which is remarkably similar to יהוה ("Jehovah"). The translators misread יהיה as יהוה and later corrected this as noted in the 8/15/79 Watchtower's notice to it's readers on page 31:

"A Correction

In making the New World Translation of Leviticus 23:21, the Hebrew יהיה (“it will be”) was misread as יהוה (“Jehovah”). Hence, the first sentence of this verse should read: “And you must make a proclamation on this very day; there will be a holy convention for yourselves.”'

The original mistake definitely shows that the translators were either working from or comparing a Hebrew text and not simply “revising” English bibles, and the revision shows that the later revisers were also checking the Hebrew.

Index of Links and Pages that Defend the New World Translation

2010-12-07T17:47:00.000-08:00

Subjects
(Scoll down for Scripture List; For the Index to ALL topics, click here.)

A

Analuo/Releasing    Apollumi - "destroy" / "annihilate"    Asiarches

B

Baptism for Dead    Ben Kedar    Biased? (NWT)

C

Choosing a Modern Translation    Coptic    Colwell's study of various translations

D

Despotes / "Sovereign Lord"    Diakonos/Minister    "Dungy idols" / "gullilum"

E

Epiphaneia / Jesus' future return    Estin / "is" or "means"?    Exercise Faith/Believe

F

Features (of the NWT)

G

"God" or "a god"? (Cnts)    "God" or "a god"? (Zndvn)

H

Holy Ones

I

I AM    "In" (translating)    Inspired Expression    "Is" or "Means"?

J

"Jehovah" in the NT (Zndvn)    "Jehovah" in the NT (Cnts' List)    Jesus as "Theos" in the New Testament

K

Kharis: "Undeserved Kindness"    Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures    Keras Soterias    Kolasis-Cutting Off

L

Lynn Lundquist's Criticisms (Response to)

M

MAGI - "Wise men" or "Astrologers"?    "Magic-practicing priests"    "Man"    Monogenes (only begotten)

O

"Other" (Adding)

P

Parousia-Presence   "Peculiar Translations"    Pneuma/Spirit    Psyche/soul

R

Rock-mass

S

SFBT Index  Sharp's Rule (Zndvn)   Sharp's Rule (Cntss)   SMV Conclusion

T

Tasso   "Too Literal" (Zndvn)   Too Literal (Cnts)  Torture Stake vs Cross   "Torture Stake" Stauros   Trinity Index

U

Unnamed Translators

V

"Virginity"

W

Weights & Measures    Words Omitted    Worship / Proskyneo

Scriptures
(For the Scripture Index to ALL topics, click here.)

Gen. 1:2 (Ruach)

Gen 7:15

Gen 8:21

Gen 16:12

Gen 17:4

Gen 21:9

Judges 14:3

Job 6:6: "marshmallow"

Ps 1:2

Ps. 90:2 (Yalad)

Prov. 11:16

Isa. 9:6

Isa 58:1

Jeremiah 10:10 ".. is in truth God"

Joel 2:32

Hab. 1:12

Zech. 3:2 NWT 'add' the words "the angel of"?

Zech 12:10

Zech 12:10/Jn 19:37

Mal 3:8

Mt. 5:18 "hews" / "sooner would"

Mt. 5:44 "agapate" / "continue to love"

Mt 6:17

Mt. 6:27 (Cubit / Lifespan)

Matthew 27:52, 53 - resurrection?

Mt. 28:19

Mark 1:4 "baptism [in symbol] of repentance"?

Luke 12:42 "discreet" in the NWT is 'phronimos'

Luke 20:29 "Sovereign Lord"

Luke 23:43

Jn 1:1 (A Number of Trinitaran Translations and Scholars Admit "a god")

Jn 1:1 NWT

Jn 1:1 NWT Make Up Rule?

Jn 1:1 Mrtn

Jn 1:18 "only-begotten god/son"

Jn 14:14

Jn 17:3 "Taking in Knowledge"

John 17:5 (para)

John 17:21 "are in union with me."

John 20:28 "My God"

Acts 2:17 "some of" (apo); "Every sort" (pas)

Acts 2:42 "..to taking of meals.."

Acts 4:24 "Sovereign Lord"

Acts 5:3 "play false"

Acts 5:42 "from house to house"

Acts 10:36 'others'

Acts 20:28

Rom. 8:27 (phronema) (INDNWT);   Rom. 8:27 - Why is the Greek word translated differently in the NWT? (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

Rom 9:5

Romans 10:9,10: "homologeo"

Rom 10:13

Rom. 13:1

1 Cor 2:7

1 Cor. 10:4 - "that rock-mass meant the Christ"

1 Cor 14:12-16

1 Cor. 15:2 "being saved"

2 Cor. 5:1 (exomen)

2 Cor.13:14 "the sharing in"

Ephesians 2:8, 9

Eph. 4:12 (katartismos)

Phil 2:6 "Other"

Col 1:16 "Other"

Col. 2:9 "fullness of the divine quality"

2 Thess. 2:15 "Tradition"

2 Thess. 3:6 "Tradition"

Tit 2:13

Heb. 1:6

Heb 1:8

Heb 9:27

1 Peter 1:11 "spirit of Christ."

1 Pet 2:3 (DNWT)   1 Peter 2:3 ("Lord") (INDNWT)

1 Pet 3:15

2 Pet 1:1

1 John 5:7

1 Jn 5:20 "True God"

Rev. 1:1 (eshmanen)

Revelation 1:9 "bearing witness to Jesus." (INDNWT)

Rev. 3:14

Revelation 5:10 and "EPI": "On" or "Over"?;  What does 'epi' mean? (JWQ&A);

Rev. 6:10 "Sovereign Lord"

Rev 13:1

Revelation 1:9 "bearing witness to Jesus." New World Translation

2010-12-07T17:01:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Revelation 1:9 "bearing witness to Jesus." New World Translation (INDNWT)

Psalm 34:8 and 1 Peter 2:3 ("Lord") New World Translation

2010-12-07T17:00:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Psalm 34:8 and 1 Peter 2:3 ("Lord") New World Translation (INDNWT)

1 Peter 1:11 "spirit of Christ." New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:57:00.001-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

1 Peter 1:11 "spirit of Christ." New World Translation (INDNWT)

Ephesians 2:8, 9 New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:57:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Ephesians 2:8, 9 New World Translation (INDNWT)

1 Cor. 15:2 "being saved" New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:56:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

1 Cor. 15:2 "being saved" New World Translation (INDNWT)

"the sharing in" - 2 Cor.13:14

2010-12-07T16:55:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

2 Cor.13:14 "the sharing in" (INDNWT)

1 Cor. 10:4 - "that rock-mass meant the Christ" New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:53:00.000-08:00

Despite the complaints about the NWT translating the Greek petra as "rock-mass", we see The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publ., Vol. 3, p. 381, declaring that petra can mean "a mass of rock," and that this held true for the writers of the Septuagint (which was quoted in many places in the NT), p. 381.

And W. E. Vine tells us precisely that

"PETRA (petra) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved." - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 974.

Vine also gives Matt. 16:18 as an example of petra used as a metaphor for Christ ["rock-mass"] which is contrasted with the metaphorical word-play petros ["rock" or "Peter"] for the Apostle Peter! (Compare the correct translation of Matt. 16:18 in the NWT with most other translations - also cf. Matt. 7:24.) Also notice the "strange" translations of petra at Matt. 27:60 in NAB (1970) and GNB!

"petra denotes a large `rock,' but also a `cliff' or `rocky mountain chain.' .... petros is more often used for smaller rocks, stones, or pebbles." - p. 834, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Kittel and Friedrich, abridged and translated by G. W. Bromiley, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 reprint.

We even find A. T. Robertson admitting in his discussion of Matt. 16: 18:

"On this rock … [petra] Jesus says, a ledge or cliff of rock like that in 7:24 on which the wise man built his house. Petros is usually a smaller detachment of this massive ledge." – p. 131, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 1, Broadman Press.
And we have the following notes found in C.B. Williams' New Testament in the Language of the People and in the New American Standard Bible:

16:18 – "…your name from now on is to be Peter, Rock, and on a massive rock like this [note e] I will build my church" - Note e: `A different word from the word trans. Peter [petros]; i.e., petra, a massive rock, meaning faith in the Christ, the Son of God.'- CBW.

16:18 – "…you are Peter [note 1], and upon this rock [note 2] I will build My church" – Note 1: `Gr., Petros, a stone.' And note 2: `Gr., petra, large rock, bedrock.' – NASB, Reference Edition, Foundation Press, 1975.

Also see:

1 Cor. 10:4 - "that rock-mass meant the Christ" New World Translation (INDNWT)

Rom. 13:1 - "authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God." New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:52:00.001-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Rom. 13:1 - "authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God." New World Translation (INDNWT)

Romans 10:9,10: "homologeo" - New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:52:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Romans 10:9,10: "homologeo" - New World Translation (INDNWT)

ROMANS 8:27 and Phronema - New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:51:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

New World Translation, ROMANS 8:27 and Phronema (INDNWT)

Acts 10:36 New World Translation: "Why is 'others' added? To imply Jesus is not Lord of God."

2010-12-07T16:50:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Acts 10:36 New World Translation: "Why is 'others' added? To imply Jesus is not Lord of God." (INDNWT)

ACTS 5:42 "from house to house" New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:49:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

ACTS 5:42 "from house to house" New World Translation (INDNWT)

Acts 5:3 "play false" - New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:48:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Acts 5:3 "play false" - New World Translation (INDNWT)

"..to taking of meals.." - Acts 2:42 New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:47:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

"..to taking of meals.." - Acts 2:42 New World Translation (INDNWT)

Acts 2:17 " I shall pour out some of my spirit upon EVERY SORT (pas) of flesh." New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:34:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Acts 2:17 " I shall pour out some of my spirit upon EVERY SORT (pas) of flesh." New World Translation (INDNWT)

Acts 2:17 - "Pour out my Spirit" or "pour out SOME OF (apo) my spirit"? NWT

2010-12-07T16:31:00.001-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Acts 2:17 - "Pour out my Spirit" or "pour out SOME OF (apo) my spirit"? (INDNWT)

"every sort" (pas) (INDNWT)

Also see:
Is the Holy Spirit really a thing that can be poured out into portions? (SFBT)

John 17:21 "Are in me" changed to "are in union with me." - New World Translation?

2010-12-07T16:31:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

John 17:21 "Are in me" changed to "are in union with me." - New World Translation? (INDNWT)

"Baptism of repentance" or "baptism [in symbol] of repentance"? - Mark 1:4

2010-12-07T16:30:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

"Baptism of repentance" or "baptism [in symbol] of repentance"? - Mark 1:4 (INDNWT)

MAGI - "Wise men" or "Astrologers"?

2010-12-07T16:28:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

MAGI - "Wise men" or "Astrologers"? (INDNWT)

Why does the New World Translation 'add' the words, within square brackets, "the angel of" at Zechariah 3:2?

2010-12-07T16:27:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Why does the New World Translation 'add' the words, within square brackets, "the angel of" at Zechariah 3:2? (INDNWT)

Jeremiah 10:10 ".. is in truth God"

2010-12-07T16:25:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Jeremiah 10:10 ".. is in truth God" (INDNWT)

Job 6:6: "marshmallow" New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:24:00.001-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Job 6:6: "marshmallow" New World Translation (INDNWT)

Genesis 1:2 New World Translation: "..and God's active force (ruach) was moving to and fro..."

2010-12-07T16:24:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Genesis 1:2 New World Translation: "..and God's active force (ruach) was moving to and fro..." (INDNWT)

Hebrew "gullilum" - "dungy idols" - New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:23:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Hebrew "gullilum" - "dungy idols" - New World Translation (INDNWT)

"...And he sent forth his angel and presented it in signs (eshmanen)...." - Revelation 1:1 New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:21:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

"...And he sent forth his angel and presented it in signs (eshmanen)...." - Revelation 1:1 New World Translation (INDNWT)

"We are to have (exomen) a building from God, a house not made with hands....." - 2 Corinthians 5:1

2010-12-07T16:20:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

"We are to have (exomen) a building from God, a house not made with hands....." - 2 Corinthians 5:1 (INDNWT)

"with a view to the readjustment (katartismos) of the holy ones,....." - Ephesians 4.12; New World Translation

2010-12-07T16:19:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

"with a view to the readjustment (katartismos) of the holy ones,....." - Ephesians 4.12; New World Translation (INDNWT)

Why has the New World Translation translated Greek "agapate" as "continue to love" at Matt. 5:44?

2010-12-07T16:16:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Why has the NWT translated greek "agapate" as "continue to love" at Mt. 5:44? (INDNWT)

Why has the New World Translation translated Greek "hews" as "sooner would" rather than as simply "until" as in most other translations at Matt. 5:18?

2010-12-07T16:12:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Why has the New World Translation translated Greek "hews" as "sooner would" rather than as simply "until" as in most other translations at Matt. 5:18? (INDNWT)

Response to Lynn Lundquist's Criticisms

2010-12-07T16:11:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Response to Lynn Lundquist's Criticisms (INDNWT)

Para (John 17:5)

2010-12-07T16:09:00.000-08:00

Click on any of the following links to view:

ELOHIM - Plural 'God' (See Footnote #2) (Examining the Trinity)

A short exchange on PARA of John 17:5 (INDNWT)

Apollumi - "destroy" / "annihilate"

2010-12-07T16:06:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Apollumi - "destroy" / "annihilate" (INDNWT)

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures

2010-12-07T16:04:00.000-08:00

Click on any of the following links to view:

"It Is The Best Interlinear New Testament Available" (INDNWT)

Why the Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures was published and the benefits to students (INDNWT)

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation and the Deception of "MacGregor Ministries" (Bible Translation and Study)

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation (Pastor Russell)

Advantages of the New World Translation: "Between-the-Lines" Translations of the Bible (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

The 'Johannine Comma' - 1 John 5:7

2010-12-07T16:03:00.000-08:00

Click on any of the following links to view:

The 'Johannine Comma' - 1 John 5:7 (INDNWT)

But Your Bible's Been Changed! (From God's Word)

Newton proved that the words in 1 John 5:7 were spurious... (Pastor Russell)

1 John 5:7 (KJV) (Examining the Trinity)

How does the accuracy of the New World Translation Bible compare to other translations? (SFBT)

1 John 5:7 proof of the Trinity? (SFBT)

"Word" and 1 John 5:7, KJV ("Oneness") (JWQ&A)

"Jehovah" in the New Testament (end notes) (SFBT, 10th par. end note #1, 10th par. "Zondervan" ) (SFBT)

The New World Translation and Revelation 5:10 - "EPI": "On" or "Over"?

2010-12-07T16:01:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Revelation 5:10 and "EPI": "On" or "Over"? (INDNWT)

Why does the New World Translation at Colossians 2:9 state that in Jesus "all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily," where as other translations state that in Jesus "dwells the fullness of Deity or the Godhead?'"

2010-12-07T15:59:00.000-08:00

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." - Watchtower, August 1st, 1962, pages 479, 480

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)

Jesus as "Theos" in the New Testament

2010-12-07T15:58:00.000-08:00

Click on any of the following links to view:

Jesus as "Theos" in the New Testament (INDNWT)

Does the New testament call Jesus God? (INDNWT)

Choosing a Modern Translation

2010-12-07T15:55:00.000-08:00

WHY should there be modern Bible translations? Are not the old ones, such as the King James and the Douay versions, good enough? They are good, no doubt, and have helped countless numbers to have faith in God and in his Word, the Bible. But could there be better translations?

Yes, there could be, and there are better translations of the Bible than the King James and Douay versions, and that for a number of reasons. Admittedly, it would be difficult to find an English translation of more literary beauty than the King James. Yet, as has been well noted: "The first duty of a translator is to convey as clearly as he can what the original author wrote. He should not try to inject a rhetorical quality . . . which belong[s] more truly to the first Elizabethan age in England than to the Hebrew originals. . . . It would certainly be dangerous to give the form of the translation precedence over the meaning."

One reason why modern translations may be better than such old ones as the King James of 1611 is that the English language itself has changed over the years. For example, to "let" used to mean to "hinder". Today the meaning usually attached to the expression is just the opposite, to "permit". (2 Thess. 2:7) Likewise, to "prevent" used to mean to "go before" or to "precede". Today it means to "keep from happening." (1 Thess. 4:15) "Conversation" used to mean "conduct."Today it most often refers to talking with another. (Phil. 1:27) And for most persons today "shambles" does not refer to a "meat market," as it used to, but to a "scene of destruction."- 1 Cor. 10:25.

The progress made in understanding the Greek in which the Christian Scriptures were written has also made possible better translations. Ancient papyrus writings have been found that showed the everyday use of certain words not well understood. Thus "Raca" was simply thought to mean "a vain fellow," but that did not fit in with the severe condemnation of its use by Jesus. (Matt. 5:22, AV margin) Now, however, because of the discovery of a papyrus letter, scholar E. Goodspeed has said that ""Raca was a foul name " which one sometimes heard on the lips of foul-mouthed people but never saw in print." The New World Translation renders it "an unspeakable word of contempt."

Another example is that of the verb ape'kho, translated "have" in older translations, but which means "to have in full," being used "as a technical expression in drawing up a receipt," as stated in Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. So Jesus, in condemning those who hypocritically make a showing of their charity, said that they "are having their reward in full." That is absolutely all they will ever get, the praise of men, which was just what they wanted.- Matt. 6:2.

Modern translations often clarify the sense of figures of speech used by the Hebrews or Greeks but with which we may not be familiar. Thus 1 Peter 1:13 (AV) reads "gird up the loins of your mind." Far more understandable to modern-day readers, however, is the rendering, "brace up your minds for activity."- NW.

Especially helpful in improving translations of the Bible has been the finding of older manuscripts. At the time of the translation of the King James Version only a few Greek manuscripts were available and these were of rather late origin. But since then many fine vellum manuscripts of the collected Scriptures have come to light, some going back as far as the fourth century of our Common Era. Also papyrus manuscripts and fragments have been uncovered that date back to the third and even the second centuries C.E. Usually, the older the copy, the less likely it is to have suffered changes from copying.
And not to be overlooked is the factor of an improved understanding of God's Word. This has come about even as foretold. "The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established." (Prov. 4:18) The better God's purposes are understood, the more accurately the Word of God can be translated.

IT MUST BE ACCURATE

Regarding the translator of the Bible into English, it has well been said that his chief responsibility is to render the Biblical meaning as accurately as possible into appropriate English.

This is a position that hardly can be argued against, and yet comparatively few translators have acted in accord with it in regard to the distinctive name of God, Jehovah. In the Hebrew Scriptures this is represented by the Tetragrammaton, that is, the "four-letter word" YHWH. There is no question as to its importance, for not only does it occur more than 6,900 times, but the Creator is referred to by it more than by all other designations used in those Scriptures.

The importance of the name Jehovah was highlighted in the Preface to the American Standard Version, 1901, which, among other things, stated: "This Memorial Name, explained in Ex. iii. 14, 15, and emphasized as such over and over in the original text of the Old Testament, designates God as the personal God, . . . the Friend of his people; . . . the ever living Helper . . . This personal name, with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim."

Though stated almost seventy years ago, its position is affirmed by one of the latest scholarly translations, The Jerusalem Bible. Although many of its footnotes savor of higher criticism, this translation restores God's name to its rightful place, but preferring the form "Yahweh." The Editor's Foreword states, among other things: "It is not without hesitation that this accurate form has been used, and no doubt those who may care to use this translation of the Psalms can substitute the traditional "the Lord" . On the other hand, this would be to lose much of the flavour and meaning of the originals. For example, to say "The Lord is God" is surely a tautology [needless repetition or redundancy], as to say "Yahweh is God" is not."

Of all the many modern translations of the Bible into English, few indeed are accurate in this matter. Among those few are Rotherham's Emphasised Bible, which translation also uses the form "Yahweh," and Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, the American Standard Version and the New World Translation, which use the form "Jehovah."

THE VIRTUE OF CONSISTENCY

While the virtue of consistency cannot be pressed too far in the matter of Bible translation, it does appear that many translations do not give enough thought to this factor or let their religious prejudices interfere. As has been well observed, "There must be consistency in the translation of technical words with a rather sharply fixed content of meaning, not allowing translation to blur the distinctions carried by different words in the original. In the New Testament there is a distinction between "Hades" and "Gehenna". The former is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Sheol," the world of the dead; the latter is the final place of punishment for the wicked."- Why So Many Bibles, American Bible Society.

However, some translations, such as Today's English Version, The New Testament in the Language of Today (by W. F. Beck), and that by Monsignor Knox are doubly inconsistent in that they use more than one English word to translate 'Hai'des',one of these being "hell"; and they translate both Ge'enna and Hai'des by the English word "hell". Among those that are consistent in this matter are the American Standard Version and the New World Translation.- Matt. 5:22; 10:28. Lack of consistency is also shown on the part of many translators in failing to distinguish between dou'los, meaning a purchased slave, and dia'konos, meaning servant or minister. In the Scriptures Christians are referred to as slaves because they have been bought with a price; so they are slaves to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ their Masters. They are not mere hired servants, free to quit whenever they please. Apparently many translators do not like the sound of the word "slave," but Bible writers had a reason for using it instead of servant." Among the few that are consistent in this regard are C. B. Williams New Testament in the Language of the People and the New World Translation.- Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 7:23. The foregoing are but a few of the many examples that could be cited to show how Bible translators at times are inconsistent. They also show the value of consistency if the reader is to get the sense of what was originally written.

FAITHFUL TRANSLATION

Bible translation is by no means easy. In ever so many instances the merits of a certain rendering are relative. By that is meant that the evidence is not unequivocal. Thus a goodly number of the oldest and best manuscripts may read a certain way, while a lesser number, but still highly regarded manuscripts, read another way.

However, at times translators betray unfaithfulness to the original text. For example, the Catholic Confraternity version has Jesus asking his mother, at the time of the wedding feast in Cana, "What wouldst thou have me do, woman?" This is just the opposite of the way Roman Catholic Monsignor Knox renders the text: "Nay, woman, why dost thou trouble me with that?" Obviously the Confraternity let religious bias influence its rendering.-John 2:4.

Concerning the Bible translator Phillips we are told that he disregards "the first, second and last rule of the translator: that he be faithful to the original. Why is it necessary, for example, for him to translate in Luke 24:49, "Now I hand over to you the [command] of [my] Father," when the clear meaning of the text is, "And I myself will send upon you what my Father has promised?" The reference to the future coming of the Lord in 2 Timothy 4:8 "to all who have loved his appearing" is lost in "to all [those] who have loved what they have seen of him."" Then after listing other examples, this criticism goes on to say: "Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient."- Why So Many Bibles.

Another modern translation that can be charged with a lack of faithfulness to the original is Moffatt's New Translation of the Bible. Time and again he arranges chapters and verses in a way to suit himself in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures. Particularly is what he does with the book of Isaiah open to censure, rearranging the chapters and verses to suit himself. The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, going back, as it does, about a thousand years earlier than the accepted Masoretic text, leaves Dr. Moffatt without any justification whatever for such rearranging of Isaiah. This makes it difficult to find certain Bible texts.

IS IT A HELPFUL TRANSLATION?

At times the conscientious translator may feel justified in adding a word or two to make the meaning clear. However, there is always the danger, when this is done, of misleading the reader. Thus in an attempt to aid the reader the translator of Today's English Version replaced "he" with "Christ" at 1 John 3:2. However, in this he erred, for Jehovah God and not Jesus Christ is here referred to, even as is clear from the preceding verse 1 John 3:1. Likewise at 1 Timothy 6:15, he added "God" to the text and so misleads the reader since the apostle was speaking about Christ's being the happy and only Potentate . . . the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords."- Compare 1Tim. 6 verse 14.

Where done in keeping with the context and free from religious bias, such renderings can be very helpful. Thus Matthew 26:26 ( NW ) reads, "This means my body," for this is obviously what Jesus meant, since he still had his own body and so the bread could not literally have been his body. Likewise when koima'omai, a word used to refer to sleeping, is used to refer to death, the New World Translation ordinarily reads "he fell asleep [in death]," as at Acts 7:60. The brackets show that "in death" does not appear in the original.

This same translation is also quite helpful when rendering the word ky'rios, which means "lord" or "master." Whenever the context indicates that Jehovah God is referred to, it will render ky'rios as "Jehovah." Is this too radical? No, for in every instance except one such is also found to be the way a number of Hebrew versions have rendered ky'rios.(Matt. 1:20, 22) Especially is the name Jehovah fitting in the Christian Greek Scriptures when these quote from the Hebrew Scriptures where "Jehovah" is used.-Matt. 3:3; 4:7, 10.

Today the English Bible student has many modern translations from which to choose. By far the greater number, however, consist of only the Christian Greek Scriptures. Some of these translations have become quite popular by reason of their smooth flow of language and many apt turns of speech or felicitous expressions. However, as seen from the above examples, these are prone to err by taking too many liberties, because of misunderstanding or due to religious bias. Since accuracy and dependability are the most important requirements of a modern Bible translation it would seem that a largely literal translation is to be preferred, especially by readers who have faith that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Which translation do you think is the most desirable for you?

[Footnotes] To be consistent, however, AS should have left Tar'tar'os untranslated, instead of translating it "hell."- 2 Pet. 2:4. - Watchtower, 1969, pp 328-31

Also see:
HOW CAN YOU CHOOSE A GOOD BIBLE TRANSLATION? (WBTS; Online Watchtower Article, 5/1/08)

The Greek word KHARIS: "Undeserved Kindness"- New World Translation

2010-12-07T15:54:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

The Greek word KHARIS: "Undeserved Kindness"- New World Translation (INDNWT)

"Make Disciples of People of All the Nations"- Matthew 28:19 New World Translation

2010-12-07T15:52:00.000-08:00

"GO THEREFORE and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” This is how the New World Translation renders Jesus’ command at Matthew 28:19. This rendering has, however, been criticized. One religious pamphlet, for example, claims: “The only translation allowed by the Greek text is: ‘Make disciples of all the nations!’” Is this true?

This rendering, “Make disciples of all nations,” appears in many Bible versions and is a literal translation of the Greek. So, what basis is there for the reading, “Make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them”? The context. The expression “baptizing them” clearly refers to individuals, not nations. German scholar Hans Bruns states: “The [word] ‘them’ does not refer to the nations (the Greek makes a clear distinction), but to the people in the nations.”

Further, the way Jesus’ command was carried out should be considered. Regarding the ministry of Paul and Barnabas in Derbe, a city in Asia Minor, we read: “After declaring the good news to that city and making quite a few disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch.” (Acts 14:21) Note that Paul and Barnabas made disciples, not of the city of Derbe, but of some of the people of Derbe.

Similarly, concerning the time of the end, the book of Revelation foretold, not that whole nations would serve God, but that “a great crowd . . . out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues” would do so. (Revelation 7:9) Thus, the New World Translation stands vindicated as a reliable translation of ‘all Scripture, inspired of God.’-2 Timothy 3:16. (w98 1/1 29)

Why does the rendering of Proverbs 11:16 in the New World Translation differ from some other translations, and how is this verse to be understood?

2010-12-07T15:50:00.000-08:00

According to the New World Translation, Proverbs 11:16 reads: "A woman of charm is the one that takes hold of glory; but the tyrants, for their part, take hold of riches."

This is a careful rendering of the verse as preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic text, and it is similarly translated in many other modern versions.- Revised Standard Version, The Jerusalem Bible, Moffatt, Darby.

Yet, because of having difficulty understanding this verse, some Bible translators have attempted to make it plainer. They have done so after the pattern of the Septuagint Version, an early translation from Hebrew into Greek. In the following quotation from that version we italicize the portion that is not rendered from the Hebrew text: "A gracious wife brings glory to her husband: but a woman hating righteousness is a theme of dishonour. The slothful come to want: but the diligent [footnote, "manly"] support themselves with wealth."- Proverbs 11:16, Bagster's Septuagint Version.

Today's English Version and the Catholic New American Bible are two recent versions in the English language that expand the verse in this way. The German-language Gottingeri Bibelwerk does also, but says: "The Greek translation that we have followed has added two lines and thereby made two distinct and separate proverbs, both of which convey a clear thought; whether they are in agreement with the original text, however, is still questionable."- Volume 16, page 51

There is, though, no need to follow a "questionable" rendering. The sense of this verse can be understood from the Hebrew text, such as the Biblia Hebraica by Rudolf Kittel upon which the New World Translation is based. The verse draws a contrast between the enduring glory that a godly woman may obtain and the transitory riches that a tyrant acquires.

The Bible shows that practical wisdom, thinking ability and proper use of the tongue contribute to a person's value and charm. (Proverbs 3:21, 22; 4:7-9; 22:11; Psalm 45:1, 2) Certainly that can be true of a woman, as we can see from Abigail, the wife of foolish Nabal. Though she was "good in discretion and beautiful in form," David particularly praised Abigail for her "sensibleness."- 1 Samuel 25:3, 33.

Any godly woman who acquires true charm through wisdom, sensibleness and wise use of her tongue will receive "glory." She will achieve "glory" in the eyes of her husband, if married, and be well spoken of by others. This reflects well on and brings "glory" to the entire family. Nor need hers be a fleeting glory. Proverbs 22:1 says: "A name is to be chosen rather than abundant riches; favor is better than even silver and gold." The good name of a true worshiper has permanent value in the eyes of our God and Life-Giver.- See Acts 9:36-39.

Contrast that with a tyrant, as the proverb does. The Scriptures categorize tyrants with "wicked men" and men who are "adversaries" of those worshiping Jehovah God. (Job 6:23; 27:13) Tyrants " have not set God in front of them."(Psalm 54:3) Such a man, by suppressing and taking advantage of the innocent, may "pile up silver like dust itself." Yet at any time he may lie down and not arise. Or any day that he opens his eyes may be his last. Then all his wealth and accomplishment amount to nothing.- Job 27:16, 19; compare Luke 12:16-21.

Though a tyrant may have taken hold of riches and trust in these, his confidence is misplaced. Later in the same chapter of Proverbs we read: "The one trusting in his riches- he himself will fall."-Proverbs 11:28.

Hence, Proverbs 11:16 should bring home to us an important lesson. The tyrant's riches, which may seem to be a mark of success in this world, have no lasting value with God. It is possible, though, to win His approval. The "glory" gained by those who fear God- well illustrated by Christian women- can bring endless blessing.- 1 Peter 3:1-6. - Watchtower, 1982, 5/1 31, "Questions from Readers"

How the NWT consistently distinguishes between the five different words the inspired Hebrew writers used for "man."

2010-12-07T15:48:00.000-08:00

"HOW does God view man? His Word tells us: “Look! The nations are as a drop from a bucket; and as the film of dust on the scales they have been accounted. . . . There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.”—Isa. 40:15, 22.

Truly, when we consider the matchless Personality, the glorious Person, the exalted position, the eternal existence and the sovereign authority of Jehovah God, the Creator, we must marvel as did the psalmist that He takes note of us.—Ps. 144:3.

Scriptural expressions such as these, showing how God views man, might be multiplied, but our interest at this time is in a certain unique way by which he also reveals this truth to us. And how is that? By the different words used in the Hebrew Scriptures in referring to man.

In the English language “man” simply means man. But in Hebrew a number of different words are used, each viewing man from a certain standpoint. Of these, the four main ones are ish, meaning simply man; adám, meaning human or earthling; enósh, meaning weak or mortal; and geber, meaning a physically strong or able-bodied man.

Many translators ignore the different shades of meaning that these words have, but when we once become aware of them we are struck with the care that the Hebrew Scripture writers time and again exercised in choosing just the right word when they wanted to make a point. For example, most translations render Psalm 8:4 quite like the Revised Standard Version does: “What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him?” Now the Hebrew word most logically translated “man” is ish, but in writing this psalm David did not use ish in either instance. He was making a contrast between Jehovah God the Creator and his creature, mere man, and so he wrote: “What is enósh . . . and adám?” Or, as rendered by the New World Translation, one of the few English translations doing justice to these fine shades of meaning: “What is mortal man that you keep him in mind, and the son of earthling man that you take care of him?” Yes, compared with the almighty, immortal, divine Spirit, what is this weak mortal creature made of earth, that He should take account of him?

“ISH” AND “ISHSHÁH”

Ish, together with its plural form anashím (which at times also serves as the plural of enósh), has primarily the thought of “man,” or a person, an individual. It has no such overtones as human, mortal or able-bodied, although inherent in it is the thought of strength as of a male. The word ish does not appear in the Scriptures until after the word for woman, ishsháh—a man with a womb—appears, for in the strictest sense of the word only then did an ish become apparent; before that he was called the human, adám. When in the Hebrew Scriptures man is mentioned in relation to woman or sexual intercourse, invariably ish is used, some seventy times in all, although the word for “male” is zakhár and occurs seventy-nine times from Genesis 1:27 onward. Typical is Leviticus, chapter 20, dealing with God’s law regarding sex relations.

Ish, with its emphasis on the person, the individual, is the choice of Bible writers when writing about a “man of God,” and a “man of discernment.” When Nathan confronted King David with his sin, Nathan used this word. Did he say, “You yourself are the”—mortal? human? able-bodied man? No, but, “You yourself are [the one] the man!”—Josh. 14:6; Prov. 10:23; 2 Sam. 12:7.

There are times when the other words for “man” simply would not be appropriate. Thus when the psalmist foretold that the names of those of the body of Christ who gain heavenly glory would be known he could use only ish. “‘Each and every one was born in her.’ . . . Jehovah himself will declare, when recording the peoples: ‘This is one who was born there.’” Also Moses, when exulting over Jehovah’s victory at the Red Sea, could not have referred to Jehovah as a weak mortal or a human earthling, and so had to use ish to convey his thought, even as rendered in the New World Translation: “Jehovah is a manly person of war.”—Ps. 87:5, 6; Ex. 15:3.

“ADÁM”

Adám, the human, the earthling, is the choice whenever Hebrew Scripture writers make reference to the creation of man: “I myself have made the earth and have created even man [the human] upon it.” Adám does not denote maleness any more than human does, and so we read that Adam, that is, the human, earthling man, called the first human pair, the ish and ishsháh, the man and the woman.—Isa. 45:12; Gen. 5:1, 2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; Eccl. 7:29.

Adám, the human, is almost without exception also the word preferred when man is mentioned in the same breath with the lower animals or beasts. This coupling appears in the accounts of creation, the Deluge, the plagues of Egypt and the seventy-year desolation. The psalmist praises Jehovah God for preserving both adám (human) and beast. And it is the human that is shown to be like the beast by the Congregator: “For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind [adám] and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man [human, adám] over the beast, for everything is vanity.”—Gen. 1:26; 6:7; Ex. 8:17; Jer. 33:10; Ps. 36:6; Eccl. 3:19-21.

Fittingly, adám, the earthling, human, is also the choice when speaking of the general characteristics of humankind: “The inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up.” “There is no man that does not sin.” “Man, born of woman, is short-lived and glutted with agitation.” “Surely every earthling man . . . is nothing but an exhalation,” a breath. “There is no man having power over the spirit to restrain the spirit,” that is, to keep from dying. “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man [ish, to one] who is walking even to direct his step.”—Gen. 8:21; 1 Ki. 8:46; Job 14:1; Ps. 39:5; Eccl. 8:8; Jer. 10:23.

Even as adám sets man apart from the lower animals, so it also calls attention to man’s inferiority to the Creator, Jehovah God. Thus Moses was told that no human could see God and live. Samuel was reminded that a human can see only the outside, but God can see the heart. David prayed that he might not fall into human hands but into God’s hands, for having numbered the fighting men of his nation presumptuously. The temple of Solomon, David said, was to be built, not for humans, but for God. Jehoshaphat counseled the judges to remember that they were judging, not for humans, but for God. Elihu refused to give flattering titles to mere humans.—Ex. 33:20; 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 21:13; 29:1; 2 Chron. 19:6; Job 32:21.

The psalmist twice asked why the great Creator should take note of mere humans; also, he said that, though certain ones were “gods,” they would die like earthling man. The fear of humans brings a snare, but he that trusts in Jehovah will be safe. Why go down to Egypt for help? The Egyptians are not spirits but mere humans, earthlings. And to highlight the seriousness of the selfishness of the priests in Malachi’s day, God asked: “Will earthling man rob God?”—Ps. 8:4; 144:3; 82:7; Prov. 29:25; Isa. 31:3; Mal. 3:8.

“ENÓSH”

The thought behind enósh, weak or mortal, shows, for one thing, that the Hebrew Scripture writers had no illusions about man’s being immortal. How could they, since they received their “theology,” not from pagan sources, but from God himself, who made plain man’s mortal nature both by warning him of death in the event he sinned and by sentencing him, after he had sinned, to return to the dust from which man had been taken.—Gen. 2:17; 3:19.

Enósh always has an unfavorable connotation and, therefore, is never used in a complimentary sense. Fittingly, it is frequently coupled with adám, human, when man is contrasted with his immortal Maker, Jehovah God. Psalms 8:4 and Ps 144:3 are typical of this coupling of enósh with adám when contrasting man with God. Thus also Moses wrote: “You make mortal man [enósh] go back to crushed matter, and you say: ‘Go back, you sons of men [adám].’” Because of the wickedness of man God warned that he would make ‘enósh scarcer than refined gold and adám scarcer than the gold of Ophir.’ Putting both enósh and adám in their places are the words of Jehovah to Isaiah: “I myself am the One that is comforting you people. Who are you that you should be afraid of a mortal man [enósh] that will die, and of a son of mankind [adám] that will be rendered as mere green grass? And that you should forget Jehovah your Maker, the One stretching out the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth.”—Ps. 90:3; Isa. 13:12; 51:12, 13.

Particularly in the book of Job, which features God’s sovereignty in contrast to man’s puniness, is enósh a favorite term when making this point: “How can mortal man be in the right in a case with God?” “What is mortal man that you should rear him, and that you should set your heart upon him?” “Do you [Jehovah] have eyes of flesh, or is it as a mortal man sees that you see? Are your days like the days of mortal man, or your years just like the days of an able-bodied man?” “As one trifles with mortal man will you trifle with [God]? “ “God is much more than mortal man.”—Job 9:2; 7:17; 10:4, 5; 13:9; 33:12.

From his prayers we can see that David had a like keen appreciation: “Do arise, O Jehovah! Let not mortal man prove superior in strength.” “Judge the fatherless boy and the crushed one, that mortal man who is of the earth may no more cause trembling.” “As for mortal man, his days are like those of green grass.”—Ps. 9:19; 10:18; 103:15.

“GEBER”

The term geber means one able-bodied, well-developed, physically strong, that is, a mighty one in the case of a man. While it has complimentary implications, the way it is used by the Hebrew Scripture writers keeps man cognizant of his inferior relationship to his Maker, Jehovah God. Thus we find that, when at last Jehovah God called patient Job to account because of his mistaken view of things, God twice addressed Job, not as a mere ish, a mere adám or a mere enósh, but he used the term geber: “Gird up your loins, please, like an able-bodied man, and let me question you, and you inform me,” since you were so sure of yourself as not to justify me! How fitting!—Job 38:3; 40:7.

Pharaoh, when beginning to yield under the impact of the plagues, at first only granted permission for the able-bodied men to go into the wilderness to worship. And when the Israelites finally left Egypt we read that 600,000 able-bodied men, above twenty years old and able to fight, left Egypt together with their little ones.—Ex. 10:11; 12:37.

Because an able-bodied man is inclined to be “self-assuming,” trusting in his own strength, he is repeatedly singled out for reminders of the folly of such a mental attitude: “Here is the able-bodied man that does not put God as his fortress.” “What able-bodied man is there alive who will not see death?” “An able-bodied man dies and lies vanquished.” Yes, “cursed is the able-bodied man who puts his trust,” not in Jehovah, but in what is, after all, a mere “earthling man [adám].”—Hab. 2:5; Ps. 52:7; 89:48; Job 14:10; Jer. 17:5.

Geber is frequently used to drive home a point by way of contrast. Thus the psalmist complains: “I have become like an able-bodied man without strength.” It would not have made much of a point had he said he became like a weak mortal, an enósh, because such a one does not have strength to begin with! Making the same point, Solomon observed that it is not good that “an able-bodied man should transgress over a mere piece of bread.” There might be an excuse for an enósh to do so, but certainly not a geber. The bad news he received caused Jeremiah’s bones to shake like “an able-bodied man whom wine has overcome,” hence a violent shaking. He also stressed the wretchedness of the men of Israel by employing this term: “Why is it that I have seen every able-bodied man with his hands upon his loins like a female that is giving birth, and all faces have turned pale?” Yes, this was serious when even able-bodied men, not mere enósh or weak mortals, were affected in this way!—Ps. 88:4; Prov. 28:21; Jer. 23:9; 30:6.

Logically we are told that “one wise in strength is,” not an adám, ish or enósh, but a geber, “an able-bodied man.” A wise geber trusts not in his own strength but in Jehovah: “Blessed is the able-bodied man who puts his trust in Jehovah, and whose confidence Jehovah has become.”—Prov. 24:5; Jer. 17:7.

Truly, to note the way “man” is used in the Hebrew Scriptures strengthens our faith and helps us to get God’s view on man. It is wholesomely instructive to our maintaining our proper relationship with our Creator and gaining his approval and blessing." - The Watchtower, 1962, January 15th, pages 56-59

EPIPHANEIA in the NT with reference to Jesus' future return in glory

2010-12-07T15:47:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

EPIPHANEIA in the NT with reference to Jesus' future return in glory (INDNWT)

Worship / Proskyneo

2010-12-07T11:44:00.001-08:00

Click on any of the following links to view:

Worship (as used in Scripture) (Examining the Trinity)

Worship or Obeisance? (Bible Translation and Study)

PROSKYNEO-Always "Worship"? (In Defense of The New World Translation)

Heb. 1:6 - "Let all the angels of God worship him [Jesus]." (JWQ&A)

Heb. 1:6 "All angels of God worship him" KJV (SFBT)

Should we worship Jesus (Hebrews 1: 6; Matthew 1:2)? (jwitness forum)

Did Jehovah's Witnesses worship Jesus prior to 1954? (jwitnessforum)

Why does the New World Translation render Psalm 90:2 so differently from other translations? (Yalad)

2010-12-07T11:40:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

Why does the New World Translation render Psalm 90:2 so differently from other translations? (INDNWT)

DESPOTES which the NWT renders "Sovereign Lord" at Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24 and Rev.6:10

2010-12-07T11:36:00.000-08:00

Click on the following link to view:

DESPOTES which the NWT renders "Sovereign Lord" at Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24 and Rev.6:10 (INDNWT)

What is the authority for the use of the expression "magic-practicing priests" New World Translation of the books of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel? (hhartumim')

2010-12-07T11:31:00.000-08:00

The Hebrew word translated "magic-practicing priest" in Genesis, Exodus and Daniel, as, for instance, in Genesis 41:8, is hhartumim'. This word is defined by the Lexicon in Old Testament Books by Koehler and Baumgartner, Volume I, page 333, column 1, as "epithet of magic practicing priests," and it shows the ancient derivation of the word. It also suggests rendering the word in translations as "soothsayer priests". This lexicon was published in completion in 1951.

This rendering of the New World Translation is therefore both literal and explicit, in keeping with its being a literal translation. - Taken from The Watchtower 1961 5/15 320

This Hebrew word ocurrs, always in the plural, at Gen.41:8, 24; Ex.7:11, 22; 8:7, 18, 19; 9:11(twice); Dan.1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:7, 9; 5:11. The New Revised Standard Version(1989) and the King James version(1611) translates it as "magicians."

The NIV Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible states under this word: "Hartom; from harah...engraving tool. Magician. Always occurs in the plural form. Denotes Egyptian and Babylonian sages who practiced sorcery."- Old Testament Lexical Aids, p. 1517, AMG Publishers, 1996.

The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: "soothsayer priest, possibly an Egyp[tian] loan word." Volume 2, page 273, Paternoster Press, UK, 1997.

Strongs Number: 2748

Goodrick/Kohlenberger: 3033

Some New World Translation "Features"

2010-12-07T11:18:00.000-08:00

There are also many other features that recommend the New World Translation to Bible lovers. One of these is that, in keeping with the Hebrew and Greek verbs, it consistently distinguishes between a single act or a repeated one, a continual one. Those translations such as the King James, which do not recognize such differences, have the apostle John contradicting himself. How so? In that at 1 John 2:1 he says "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father." But at 1 John 3:6 we read: " Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not." But the New World Translation makes this all clear, for at 1 John 2:1 it reads: "If anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father." Whereas at 1 John 3:6 it reads:"Everyone remaining in union with him does not practice sin."

Similarly at Luke 11:5-10 Jesus uses an illustration to drive home the point that we must persevere in prayer. So he does not simply say that if we "ask," "seek" and " knock" God will answer us but that "everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds and to everyone knocking it will be opened." Hence, continuous action is indicated.

Additionally, the New World Translation distinguishes between the adjective kalos, which means fine, excellent, superb, choice, and agathos, which chiefly means that which is morally good. So, at John 10:2-16, Jesus did not speak of himself as merely a good shepherd, but as a fine, excellent, superb shepherd.

The New World Translation also recommends itself in its uniquely distinguishing between the five Hebrew words usually indiscriminately translated "man". There is a difference in the meaning of these words, and Hebrew Scripture writers recognized the difference. Thus, in keeping with the original meaning, the New World Translation renders adam as "earthling man," referring to man as a creature of the earth. Enosh it renders as "mortal man" ; this emphasizes man's puny, weak state. Geber it renders as "able-bodied man," for the Hebrew word indicates a powerful man. Ish it renders simply as man," as distinguished from ishah, woman, or simply a person; and zakar it renders as "male," for it is generally used with regard to sex relations. - From The Watchtower, 1982, 3/15, p.27

Matthew 27:52, 53 - Was there a resurrection from the dead at the time of Jesus' death?

2010-12-07T11:17:00.001-08:00

WAS there a resurrection from the dead at the time of Jesus’ death? Many Bible commentators so hold. They base their belief upon Matthew 27:52, 53. In the Revised Standard Version (the Roman Catholic Confraternity Version is almost identical), these verses read: “The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”

According to the Roman Catholic Commentary on holy Scripture, the earthquake, mentioned in the previous verse, split open the rocky tombs to prepare the exit of the bodies, which were not resurrected until after Christ’s resurrection. But let it be noted that this is not what the text actually states, in either Roman Catholic or Protestant versions.

Regarding these verses one of the foremost Protestant Bible commentaries, that by Adam Clarke, states: “It is difficult to account for the transaction mentioned in verses 52 and 53. Some have thought that these two verses have been introduced into the text of Matthew from the gospel of the Nazarenes, others think the simple meaning is this:—by the earthquake several bodies that had been buried were thrown up and exposed to view, and continued above ground till after Christ’s resurrection, and were seen by many persons in the city. Why the graves should be opened on Friday, and the bodies not raised to life till the following Sunday, is difficult to be conceived. The place is extremely obscure.”

Another Bible commentator, Dr. Jenks, says regarding these verses: “This matter is not related as fully as our curiosity could wish. . . . We may raise inquiries concerning it which we cannot resolve.” Other Bible commentators express themselves similarly.

Could the event mentioned in these two verses have indeed been the beginning of the resurrection of the dead of which Jesus spoke as recorded at John 5:28, 29? No, for Jesus said that all those in the memorial tombs would come forth either to a resurrection of life or to a resurrection of judgment. Since the account says that these were “saints” or “holy ones,” they would have been raised to a resurrection of life. Were they? Hardly, or they would still be living today, even as Jesus has kept on living since his resurrection to life.—Rev. 1:18.

That is why we read that “Christ has been raised up from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death.” “He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things.” These holy ones, therefore, could not have been resurrected with the prospect of endless life before Jesus was.—1 Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:18.

They could not even have been resurrected to life right after Jesus was, as suggested by some, because Paul shows that the Christian holy ones will be resurrected and receive their reward “in that day,” when “the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” Paul did not even write this until many years after Jesus had been resurrected, and it was to be fulfilled far in the future.—2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Thess. 4:16.

Then could it be that these were pre-Christian holy ones, destined for life, not in heaven, but on earth? If so, they still could not have received their resurrection at the time Jesus did, because Paul wrote regarding them: “All these, although they had witness borne to them through their faith, did not get the fulfillment of the promise, as God foresaw something better for us, in order that they might not be made perfect apart from us.” Had these been resurrected to life then, they would have been made perfect apart from “us,” the Christian holy ones.—Heb. 11:39, 40.

NO BODILY RESURRECTION

Besides, nowhere in the Scriptures do we read that the bodies of the dead will be raised up; even though the so-called Apostles’ Creed does teach the resurrection of the human body. The “dead,” yes, but not the “dead bodies.” Dead persons will be resurrected in God’s due time, and they will be given a suitable body; they will have the same personality. Note the clear reasoning of the apostle Paul on this matter in regard to the resurrection of the Christian holy ones: “‘How are the dead to be raised up? Yes, with what kind of body are they coming?’ . . . What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies; and as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare grain, . . . but God gives it a body just as it has pleased him . . . So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised up in incorruption. . . . It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. . . . flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption.”—1 Cor. 15:35-38, 42-44, 50.

Since the Bible does not teach the raising of the human body in either the first resurrection or in the one to follow, the fact that bodies here were raised would prove that it could not have been the beginning of either of these resurrections. At the most it would be merely a temporary resurrection of some faithful Jews who quite likely had recently died. Their resurrection, therefore, would not have been any different from the resurrection experienced by Jesus’ friend Lazarus and others like him.

But even this supposition must be ruled out in view of these questions: If the graves were opened up when Jesus died, why did the bodies of the holy ones have to wait until after Jesus was resurrected to come out of the tombs and appear to many? There was an earthquake when Jesus was raised; why could they not have waited for it? To whom did these bodies appear? Was their resurrection in competition with that of Jesus, who appeared on the third day to his disciples? What was the purpose of their appearance? What did they call attention to or talk about? Did their resurrection enhance or add anything to that of Jesus or prove a verification of his resurrection? How is it that such an unusual event is not mentioned elsewhere in the Christian Greek Scriptures? Besides, why did not the apostle Paul call attention to their resurrection in his argument, at First Corinthians 15, that there is a resurrection of the dead? If many had been resurrected and seen by many, such would have been common knowledge and Paul would have mentioned the fact.

A reasonable solution to this problem is given by the rendering of the verses in question in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. While a literal translation, it puts clarity of thought ahead of literalness. It reads: “And the memorial tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy ones that had fallen asleep were thrown up, (and persons, coming out from among the memorial tombs after his being raised up, entered into the holy city,) and they became visible to many people.” From this translation it is evident that this was no resurrection of “sleeping saints” but merely a throwing of bodies out of their tombs by the earthquake that attended Jesus’ death.

Nor is the New World Translation alone in rendering these verses thus. A modern German translation reads quite similarly: “Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city.”—Matt. 27:52, 53.

An incident quite similar to this took place in Ecuador in 1949. There the dead are usually buried in large burial vaults, shelf upon shelf and vault upon vault. An earthquake cracked open these vaults, ejecting many dead bodies, which had to be buried at once to prevent a plague from breaking out.

What is the basis for these renderings? First of all, let it be noted that the pronoun “they” (Matt. 27:53, RS) could not refer to the “bodies,” because all pronouns in the Greek have gender and “they” is in the masculine, whereas “bodies” is in the neuter gender. Nor could “they” refer to the “holy ones,” for the text does not say that the holy ones were raised but merely that their bodies were raised or thrown up. Further, even the most ancient manuscripts are not in agreement with one another as to the reading of this text. The Sinaitic omits the words “and the memorial tombs were opened” and “entered.”

In view of all the questions that these texts raise, their contradictory reading and the variations in them found in the most ancient manuscripts, another alternative may not be ruled out altogether. And what is that? That these verses were not written by Matthew himself but added by an early copying hand. This position seems to find further support in the fact that the particular Greek word for “resurrection” (RS) used here, égersis, occurs nowhere else in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Also, here is the only use of the expression “the saints,” “holy ones,” in all the Gospels, it first appearing after Pentecost. The fact that these verses are found in the apocryphal Gospel of the Nazarenes but not in any of the other canonical Gospels further makes these verses suspect. Incidentally, this Gospel by the Nazarenes was held by some to have been Matthew’s original Gospel in Hebrew, which he later translated into Greek. It resembles his canonical Gospel quite closely except that it begins without the genealogy.

We cannot escape it, verses 52 and 53 of Matthew, chapter 27, are ambiguous. In fact, they are among the most difficult verses to translate of the entire Christian Greek Scriptures. Because of their ambiguity no one can dogmatically state just how they should be rendered. What governs the translation of texts such as these where there is an ambiguity in the original text therefore is not textual criticism, because it is frustrated by the ambiguity. Rather, exegesis, or Bible interpretation of the meaning intended by the original writer, will have to govern. The way each translator would therefore render such texts would depend upon his understanding of the rest of the Scriptures. The Scriptural facts above set out dictate how they must be rendered to be consistent with the rest of the Bible. - From the w61 1/1 28-30

Why does the NWT give preference to the word "tradition" at 2 Thess. 3:6 and at 2 Thess. 2:15?

2010-12-07T11:17:00.000-08:00

In 2 Thessalonians 3:6 the Moffatt translation reads in part: " instead of following the rule you received from us." Other versions read "direction," "commandments," "teaching," and " instruction". Why does the New World Translation give preference to the word "tradition" in this text as also at 2 Thessalonians 2:15?

The New World Translation endeavors to be consistent in its renderings. In keeping with the rule noted in the Foreword of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures ,as far as possible it uses just one English word to render one original Greek word into English. The Greek word here is par'edosis, which has the thought of a transmitted precept. It is the same word as is used at Matthew 15:6, where Jesus told his religious opposers that they made the Word of God void by reason of their tradition. While the word "tradition" is frequently used in contrast to Bible truth handed down in writing, it is not limited to such precepts. The use of the word here as well as at 2 Thessalonians 2:15 shows that there is a valid tradition by the apostles, which tradition was committed to writing under inspiration. This, of course, differs from uninspired tradition, tradition that invalidates God's Word.

Thus the New World Translation, in rendering par'edosis "tradition" at 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2Th 3:6, has remained faithful to its rule. It has not let the opprobrium usually attached to the term "tradition" by sincere and enlightened Bible students cause it to use another word in this and its related text. This is in contrast to the Diaglott, which has been so influenced. In the interlinear translation It uses the word "tradition" in both verses, but in its English text it chose to use the word "instruction." The Revised Standard Version, however, uses the word "tradition," even as does the American Standard Version. - Taken from The Watchtower, Question from Readers, May 1st, 1961, pp.287/8.

"I understand that a group of Bible scholars made comparison of various Bible translations. Was the New World Translation included in this study?"

2010-12-07T11:15:00.000-08:00

"It appears that what your letter inquires about is a book written by Professor Ernest Cadman Colwell, entitled "What Is the Best New Testament?" This book is published by the Chicago University Press and was first printed in 1952. In 1947 Professor Colwell made a study of a number of translations and put them to the test as to sixty-four citations in the book of John. The book contains what Professor Colwell considers the correct rendering of each of those sixty-four citations. The New World Translation was not released until 1950, hence Professor Colwell could not include this translation in his list of tested ones.

"However, if any reader will look up what Professor Colwell has to say about these sixty-four citations and will compare these with the New World Translation he will see that the New World Translation merits a score of sixty-four along with Dr. Goodspeed's translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which the book gives a perfect score of sixty-four. Colwell's book being first published in 1952, it was not available until two years after the release of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which occurred in 1950 at Yankee Stadium. Consequently the New World Bible Translation Committee did not have Colwell' s book for reference when work on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was being done." - Question From Readers, The Watchtower 1963, p.95

Is not the use of the term "cubit" at Matthew 6:27, New World Translation, wrong since a life span cannot be measured by a cubit?

2010-12-07T11:14:00.000-08:00

Matthew 6:27 reads: "Who of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his life span?" The Greek word here is pe'khus,which literally means the forearm, on which the cubit was based, and is therefore the Greek word for cubit. Luke used the same word when recording these words of Jesus, and John used it in describing how far the disciples were from shore when they got the great catch of fish when Jesus appeared to them after his resurrection. The same word he also used in giving the measurements of the holy city, Jerusalem.- Luke 12:25; John 21:8; Rev. 21:17.

Obviously, then, the thought of pe'khus is that of length. In making use of this term Jesus, in his sermon on the mount, was not discussing the stature of one's body or its height or tallness, for that is not a common source of anxiety. Rather, he was referring to the prolongation of one's life. Life is measured by its length, as indicated by the use of the phrase " life span" in the New World Translation. Therefore a measure of length, namely, a cubit, which was eighteen inches long, is very appropriate and, compared with the length of life, it would certainly be very short. This was the point that Jesus was making: by being anxious you cannot increase your life span even eighteen inches. But to add eighteen inches to one's height would be phenomenal, making one a giant, as compared to others.

It is very interesting to note that An American Translation, by Smith and Goodspeed, renders Matthew 6:27 as follows: " But which of you with all his worry can add a single hour to his life?" The Revised Standard Version of 1952 renders the verse: "And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life?" The Roman Catholic Spencer Version reads: " Yet who among you, by anxious thought, is able to add a single span to his life?" A modern American version by C. Williams freely translates Jesus' words thus: "But which of you by worrying can add a single minute to his life?" A footnote states: "The word means size or time; here time." And the Diaglott, an interlinear Greek version reads:"Besides, which of you, by being anxious, can prolong his life one moment?" Its interlinear, word-for-word translation reads: "Which and by of you being over careful is able to add to the age of him span one?" Clearly, in view of all the foregoing, Matthew 6:27 is properly rendered in the New World Translation. - Watchtower, Question from Readers, 1961, May 1st, p.287

Revelation 5:10 - "EPI": Does it mean "On" or "Over"?

2010-12-06T12:43:00.000-08:00

Click on any of the following links to view:

Revelation 5:10 and "EPI": "On" or "Over"? (INDNWT)

What does 'epi' mean? (JWQ&A)

Hebrews 1:8 "Thy throne, O God"

2010-12-02T17:35:00.000-08:00

HEB. 1:8 - Some trinitarians insist that Hebrews 1:8 which is addressing Jesus Christ (and Ps. 45:6 which it is quoting) must read: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever."

However, many trinitarian scholars freely admit the honest possibility of alternate, non-trinitarian interpretations and renderings for this verse.

Just the admission by so many trinitarian translators that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated as it is in the NWT makes any insistence by other trinitarians that this scripture is acceptable evidence for a trinity doctrine completely invalid! Even famed Southern Baptist New Testament Greek scholar and trinitarian Dr. A. T. Robertson (who is even willing to sometimes go to ridiculous - and often provably wrong - lengths to support trinitarian "proof texts") admits:

"It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative [`your throne, O God'] ... or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin ('is') understood: `God is thy throne' or `Thy throne is God.' Either makes good sense." - p. 339, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.

We also see the following statement by respected trinitarian scholars in a footnote for Ps. 45:6:

"45:6 O God. Possibly the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as 'god.'" - Ps. 45:6 f.n. in the NIV Study Bible.

And we have the statement by one of the greatest scholars of Biblical Hebrew of all time, H. F. W. Gesenius. In his famous and highly respected Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Gesenius renders Ps. 45:6 [or 45:7 in some Bibles],

"thy throne shall be a divine throne." - #433.

Obviously, then, the charge sometimes made that the NWT is "not being honest or scholarly" with its rendering of Heb. 1:8 is simply untrue, and it certainly may be honestly translated "God is your throne forever."

However, there is more evidence, evidence which shows not only that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated "God is your throne," but, indeed, should be so translated!

Notice the context. Heb. 1:8 and 1:9 are being quoted from Ps. 45:6 and 45:7. In Ps. 45:7, speaking to the Israelite King, it says: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows." - RSV. Just as this makes it clear that the ancient Israelite king was not God but was anointed by God, his God, to a position above his fellows, so does Heb. 1:9, as figuratively applied to Jesus, show that he is not God, but was anointed by his God to a position above his fellows! Context, then, shows that the person addressed in Heb. 1:8 is not God, but one who worships God and was anointed by his God!

The renowned trinitarian Bible scholar, B. F. Westcott, wrote:

"The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings [at Ps. 45:6, 7]: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (`thy throne, O God, .... therefore, O God, thy God...') or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (`God is Thy throne,' or `Thy throne is God...'), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case (`Therefore God, even Thy God...') .... It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX [Septuagint]. Thus on the whole it seems BEST to adopt in the first clause the rendering: `God is thy throne' (or, `Thy throne is God'), that is, `Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.'" - The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.
For much more evidence that Heb. 1:8 is properly rendered "God is your throne" see the HEB study paper.

A. Translations of Heb. 1:8 by trinitarians:

"God is your throne" - AT (Dr. Goodspeed)
"God is thy throne" - Mo (Dr. James Moffatt)
"God is your throne" - Byington
"God is your throne" - Dr. Barclay
"God is thy throne" - Dr. Westcott
"God is thy throne" - A. T. Robertson (Alternate translation)
"God is thy throne" - Dr. Young (Alt.)
"God is thy throne" - RSV (Alt.)
"God is your throne" - NRSV (Alt.)
"God is thy throne" - NEB (Alt.)
"Thy throne is God" - ASV (Alt.)

B. Translations of Ps. 45:6 by trinitarians:

"Your Divine throne" - RSV
"Your throne is like God's throne" - NEB
"God is your throne" - Byington
"The kingdom that God has given you" - GNB
"God has enthroned you" - REB
"Your throne is from God" - NJB
"Your throne is a throne of God" - NRSV (Alt.)
"Thy throne is the throne of God" - ASV (Alt.)

Yes, again, even the trinitarian (and Bowman-approved) Dr. Goodspeed renders this the very same as the NWT:

"God is your throne forever and ever"

So, again, how is it that the NWT is to be condemned for its "dishonesty," "bias," etc. when the much-acclaimed (and Bowman-approved) trinitarian scholar Dr. Goodspeed (and many others) renders it the same?

For more, see:
Heb. 1:8 "Thy Throne O God" (Examining the Trinity)

Heb. 1:8 (INDNWT)

George Wesley Buchanan and Hebrews 1 (INDNWT)

Habakkuk 1:12 "You (We) do not die"

2010-12-02T17:04:00.000-08:00

Click on any of the following links to view:

Habakkuk 1:12 (INDNWT)

Why does the NWT render Habakkuk 1:12 "O Jehovah...you do not die", when many other Bibles render it as "WE will not die"? (JWQ&A)

Habakkuk 1:12 Scribal notes (JWQ&A)

"King of Eternity" did not die, but His Son did (JWQ&A)

John 14:14

2010-12-01T19:10:00.000-08:00

Robert Bowman in his Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baker Book House, 1991:

"John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads: “If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it.” The Greek text in the KIT [Kingdom Interlinear Translation], however, has me after ask, so that it should be translated: “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones included it, and most modern editions of the Greek New Testament include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this reading in a note." - pp. 67-68.

But at John 14:14 'me' is omitted after 'ask' in the following trinitarian Bibles: KJV; NKJV; ASV; RSV; JB; NEB; REB; MLB; LB; AB; CBW; NLV; MKJV (Green); Darby; Webster’s; and Young’s.

Many of them do not mention an alternate reading of 'me' in a note! And, likewise, many of the Bibles which do translate ‘ask me’ in this verse do not mention an alternate reading without ‘me’!!

This is a disputed text. There exists manuscript evidence that ‘me’ may not have been used by the original writer. (Also see http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/ - Nov. 2, 2010 - where ‘Memra’ explains the importance of the ancient Coptic translation of this verse.)

However, there is no such dispute about John 16:23 where John wrote: “... whatever you ask the Father for, he will give you in my name.” We should ask the Father (not the Son) in Jesus’ name. Therefore 'me' at John 14:14 is even more in doubt.

Bowman has access to a copy of (and is quite familiar with) the 1984 NWT Reference Bible. He repeatedly quotes from it and refers to notes in it in both this 1991 publication (Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses) and his 1989 publication, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.

Yes, the 1984 NWT Reference Bible (which does have notes, of course) says in a footnote for John 14:14:

14* “Ask,” ADIt and in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23; P66 [Aleph]BWVgSy(h,p), “ask me.”

So for Bowman to pretend here that the NWT does not even mention that some Greek manuscripts have the word ‘me’ in this verse is simply inexcusable!

Also see:
Ask Who? John 14:14 (JWitness Forum)

The Sahidic Coptic of John 14:14 (JWQ&A)

John 14:14: To "me" or not to "me", that is the question (Sahidic Coptic Insight on NT Verses)

Rev. 13:1 - "wild beast [therion]"

2010-12-01T17:01:00.000-08:00

A book which examines most twentieth century English versions of the Bible: So Many Versions? (SMV), by trinitarian Bible scholars Dr. S. Kubo and Dr. W. Albrecht provides a page and a half of what it calls "peculiar translations" (pp. 108-109) by the NWT. Many of these "peculiar translations" are comparable to translations found in more popular Bibles of Christendom. But these comparable renderings are not criticized at all in SMV's critique of them.

One of these "peculiar translations" is of Rev. 13:1:

Rev. 13:1 - "wild beast [therion]" vs. RSV's "beast."

The NT Greek word here is therion. This word (therion) means "wild beast" in distinction to ktenos ("beast" or domestic animal) - New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., Tyndale House, p. 127.

And W. E. Vine states that therion

"almost invariably denotes a wild beast....Therion, in the sense of wild beast, is used in the Apocalypse [Revelation]...[Rev.] 11:7; 13:1-18; 14:9, 11..." - p. 95, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson Publ., 1984 printing.

Noted NT scholar Gerhard Kittel agrees: see p. 333, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (Abridged in one Volume), Eerdmans Publ., 1985.

And highly respected NT scholars Liddell and Scott write:

"[therion] a wild animal, beast .... of savage beasts" - p. 396, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell and Scott, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing. (Cf. A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. vi, p. 398.)

Adam Clarke agrees: Commenting on the word often translated as `beast' in Rev. 13:1, Clarke refers us to its use for the four beasts in the Book of Daniel. The Hebrew word used for these beasts was (chaiyah).

"This Hebrew word [chaiyah] is translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word qhrion [therion], and both words signify what we term a wild beast; and the latter is the one used by St. John in the Apocalypse. Taking up the Greek word qhrion [therion] in this sense, it is fully evident, if a power be represented in the prophetical writings under the notion of a wild beast, that the power so represented must partake of the nature of a wild beast. Hence an earthly belligerent power is evidently designed." - pp. 1109, 1110, Vol. 6B, Adam Clarke's Commentary.

Also examine NAB (1970); CBW; and Weymouth which all use "wild beast" at Rev. 13:1.

And here's how most Bibles translate therion at Mark 1:13:

"Wild beasts" - RSV; NRSV; NKJV; KJV; ASV; NASB; JB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); NEB; REB; AB; CBW; Mo; Byington; Webster (and Revised Webster); KJIIV (Green); Darby; Weymouth; and Lamsa. "Wild animals" - NIV; NJB; GNB; AT; NLV, Beck; and Phillips.

We can see the same thing at Rev. 6:8 where RSV; NASB, ASV; NIV; NEB; REB; NJB; NAB (`70); MLB; GNB; Moffatt; and Phillips translate therion as "wild beasts." Also LB; CBW; NRSV; and AT render it as `wild animals.'

1 Cor. 2:7 - NWT`s "sacred secret"

2010-12-01T16:58:00.000-08:00

Matt. 6:17 - "grease [aleipho] your head"

2010-12-01T16:55:00.000-08:00

A book which examines most twentieth century English versions of the Bible: So Many Versions? (SMV), by trinitarian Bible scholars Dr. S. Kubo and Dr. W. Albrecht provides a page and a half of what it calls "peculiar translations" (pp. 108-109) by the NWT. Many of these "peculiar translations" are comparable to translations found in more popular Bibles of Christendom. But these comparable renderings are not criticized at all in SMV's critique of them.

One of these "peculiar translations" is of Matt. 6:17:

Of all the minor criticisms of the "peculiar" translations of the NWT that are found on pp.108-109 of So Many Versions?, one of the most interesting to me is that Matt. 6:17 reads "grease [aleipho] your head" in the NWT whereas the most-respected RSV has "anoint your head." As minor as this is, it does show the great efforts taken by the NWT translators to translate accurately.

Since "anoint" in traditional Bible English has strong connotations of "consecration to a holy or sacred use" - Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 40, Bethany House Publ. - and "to signify holiness, or separation unto God" - New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., p. 50, Tyndale House Publ., it should come as no surprise that the accuracy-seeking NWT translators used "grease" for all 8 instances of the word aleipho found in the NT to distinguish it from the word which is more properly rendered "anoint" (chrio in NT Greek).

"In contrast with the more important word `chrio,' it [aleipho] refers consistently to the physical action of anointing, performed exclusively on people: for care of the body (Matt. 6:17); as a mark of honor to a guest (Lk. 7:38, 46; Jn 11:2; 12:3); to honor the dead (Mk. 16:1); and to heal the sick (Mk. 6:13; James 5:14)." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, p. 120.

That same source also tells us that

"aleipho ... denotes the process by which soft fat [grease]... or oil ... is smeared upon ... a person." - p. 119.

And Thayer tells us that aleipho is "allied with lip-os grease." - p. 25.

On the other hand, W. E. Vine tells us

"`Chrio' is more limited in its use than [aleipho]; it is confined to sacred and symbolical anointings .... in the Scriptures it is not found in connection with secular matters." - pp. 50, 51.

The RSV has been revised. Significantly, the revisers have changed SMV's model for the "correct" rendering of "anoint your head" to "put oil on your head." - NRSV, 1989.

So the NWT, instead of being criticized, should be praised for properly showing the clear distinction between the actual meanings of these two NT Greek words. The same thing can be said for most, if not all, of the criticisms of the NWT made by So Many Versions?.

Malachi 3:8 - "Will earthling man [adam] rob God?"

2010-12-01T16:50:00.000-08:00

Is. 58:1 - "Call out full-throated; do not hold back"

2010-12-01T16:48:00.000-08:00

Ps. 1:2 - "But his delight is in the law of Jehovah, And in his law he reads in an undertone day and night"

2010-12-01T16:45:00.000-08:00

Gen. 21:9 - "Sarah kept noticing the son of Hagar...poking fun"

2010-12-01T16:40:00.000-08:00

Gen. 17:4 - "you will certainly become father of a crowd of nations"

2010-12-01T16:38:00.000-08:00

Gen. 16:12 - "he will become a zebra of a man"

2010-12-01T16:35:00.000-08:00

A book which examines most twentieth century English versions of the Bible: So Many Versions? (SMV), by trinitarian Bible scholars Dr. S. Kubo and Dr. W. Albrecht provides a page and a half of what it calls "peculiar translations" (pp. 108-109) by the NWT. Many of these "peculiar translations" are comparable to translations found in more popular Bibles of Christendom. But these comparable renderings are not criticized at all in SMV's critique of them.

One of these "peculiar translations" is of Gen. 16:12:

Gen. 16:12 - "he will become a zebra of a man" vs. RSV's "He shall be a wild ass [pere] of a man." This may be one of SMV's most accurate criticisms. But notice how very nit-picking it really is. Both translations refer to a man by the metaphor of a wild, stubborn donkey-like animal. What real difference is there if one is very slightly more accurate than the other? And what purpose would there be for anyone to invent such a definition?

Granted, "wild ass" is the more popular definition of the Hebrew word here, but "zebra" was not invented by the translators of the NWT as SMV seems to imply:

"The word `pere,' rendered `zebra' (NWT) has also been translated `wild ass.' Because of their similar characteristics, both zebra and wild ass fit the context of the scriptures cited above [which include Gen. 16:12]. However, a recent Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon by Koehler and Baumgartner defines `pere' as `ZEBRA.'" - Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 1682.

Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, (eds.) A Bilingual Dictionary of the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament "English and German. The publication of the first edition of A Bilingual Dictionary of the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament by Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner in 1953 marked a major event in Old Testament studies. It presented a vast treasure of lexicographical material, with renderings into both German and English. Its publication superseded at once all other existing dictionaries, mostly stemming from the 19th century. The Dictionary offered for the first time a strictly alphabetical order of entries, rather than a simple arrangement by roots. This feature not only saved the scholar much time and work, it also set the standard for future lexicographical work on the Old Testament." - from Abebooks (on-line bookseller) blurb.

Gen. 8:21 - "Jehovah began to smell a restful odor"

2010-12-01T16:26:00.000-08:00

A book which examines most twentieth century English versions of the Bible: So Many Versions? (SMV), by trinitarian Bible scholars Dr. S. Kubo and Dr. W. Albrecht provides a page and a half of what it calls "peculiar translations" (pp. 108-109) by the NWT. Many of these "peculiar translations" are comparable to translations found in more popular Bibles of Christendom. But these comparable renderings are not criticized at all in SMV's critique of them.

One of these "peculiar translations" is of Gen. 8:21:

Gen. 8:21 - "Jehovah began to smell a restful odor" vs. RSV's "the Lord smelled the pleasing odor." [Also notice the disgraceful "pollution" of God's name in this scripture by the RSV (and most other translations) at this verse.]

The OT Hebrew word translated here as `odor' is reach (ray'- ack). Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament explains this word: "Most frequently reach is used of the `odor' of a sacrifice being offered to God. The sacrifice, or the essence of the thing it represents, ascends to God as a placating `odor.'" - p. 352, Thomas Nelson Publ., 1980.

More important, however, is the Hebrew word nichoach which RSV translates in this verse as `pleasing' (and KJV as `sweet'). The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, tells us nichoach literally means "quieting, soothing, tranquilizing." - 1981 ed., #5207, p. 1561.

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon also tells us nichoach means "soothing, tranquilizing odour of sacrifice" - p. 629, #5207, Hendrickson Publishing, 1979.

And Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon Press, tells us this same OT word literally means `restful'! - "Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary" section, #5207; p. 78.

This explains why the NASB (which SMV praises so highly for its great accuracy) translates this verse (Gen. 8:21): "...smelled the soothing aroma." - Compare NEB, REB, AT, NKJV, LVB, and Moffatt translations also.

Again we see the NWT's literally accurate translation being derided by SMV because it does not follow the tradition of the KJV (or RSV).

Gen. 7:15 - "force of life was active"

2010-12-01T16:23:00.000-08:00

A book which examines most twentieth century English versions of the Bible: So Many Versions? (SMV), by trinitarian Bible scholars Dr. S. Kubo and Dr. W. Albrecht provides a page and a half of what it calls "peculiar translations" (pp. 108-109) by the NWT. Many of these "peculiar translations" are comparable to translations found in more popular Bibles of Christendom. But these comparable renderings are not criticized at all in SMV's critique of them.

One of these "peculiar translations" is of Gen. 7:15:

Gen. 7:15 - "force of life was active" vs. RSV's "breath of life."

But examine this verse in NEB (`had life in them') and Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (`a living spirit'). The Hebrew word here is ruach (or ruah) which can be translated "wind," "breath," "spirit," etc.

"By extension when applied to a person ruah … comes to mean vital powers or strength. It is the spirit that sustains a person through illness (Prov 18:14), but the spirit of the troubled person can be crushed (Psalm 34:18). This dynamic force can be impaired or diminished as well as renewed or increased. It was a drink that caused the spirit (strength) of Samson to return and revive him (Jud 15:18-19) and the coming of the wagons from Egypt that revived Jacob's numb heart (Gen 45:26-27). Spirit also bespeaks limitations. When taken back, the person returns to dust (Psalm 104:29-30)." - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology.

"Basic range of meaning of ruach [OT Hebrew] and pneuma [NT Greek]... 1. Wind, an invisible, mysterious, powerful force... 2. Breath,... or spirit..., the same mysterious force seen as the life and vitality of man (and beasts). .... 3. Divine power, where ruach is...a supernatural force..." - p. 1136, New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1984, Tyndale House Publ.

"[Ruach (and Pneuma)] denotes the life-FORCE of the individual.... As a life-FORCE it manifests itself in varying degrees of intensity, the dominant idea being that of its accompanying vitality rather than that of breathing. .... The thought implicit in ruach is that breathing, with the movement of air which this involves, is the outward expression of the life-FORCE inherent in all human behaviour." - pp. 690, 691, Vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986.

Acts 20:28 ("God...with his own blood")

2010-12-01T12:28:00.000-08:00

Trinitarians, for obvious reasons, prefer this translation of Acts 20:28 -
"... to shepherd ["feed" in some translations] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." - NASB.

This certainly seems to be excellent evidence for a "Jesus is God" doctrine.

But there are 2 major uncertainties about the proper translation of Acts 20:28. Either one of those uncertainties completely nullifies any trinitarian "evidence" proposed for this scripture!

First, even some trinitarian Bibles translate this verse, "the church of the Lord." - NEB; REB; ASV, Moffatt. Since Jesus was often referred to as "the Lord," this rendering negates any "Jesus is God" understanding for Acts 20:28.

Yes, even the popular trinitarian work The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, uses this translation for Acts 20:28 also:

"to feed the church of the Lord"! - p. 838, Vol. 2, Zondervan Publ., 1986.

And the respected, scholarly trinitarian work, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 480, United Bible Societies, 1971, explains about this first uncertainty concerning the translation of Acts 20:28. Although, for obvious reasons, preferring the rendering "the church of God" at this verse, this trinitarian work admits that there is "considerable degree of doubt" about this "preferred" rendering. They admit that "The external evidence is singularly balanced between `church of God' and `church of the Lord'."

Second, even some trinitarian Bibles render this verse, "to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." - RSV, 1971 ed.; NRSV; NJB; ETRV [footnote] (also see TEV and GNB).

The New Testament Greek words tou idiou follow "with the blood" in this scripture. This could be translated as "with the blood of his own." A singular noun may be understood to follow "his own." This would be referring to God's "closest relation," his only-begotten Son.

Famous trinitarian scholar J. H. Moulton says about this:

"Before leaving idios [which includes the form idiou above] something should be said about the use of [ho idios, which includes tou idiou] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1:11, 13:1; Ac 4:23; 24:23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations .... In Expos. vi. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 `the blood of one who was his own.'" - A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90.

Highly respected trinitarian New Testament scholars Westcott and Hort present an alternate reason for a similar rendering:

"it is by no means impossible that YIOY [huiou, or `of the Son'] dropped out [was inadvertently left out during copying] after TOYIDIOY [tou idiou, or `of his own'] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion [restoration] leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind." - The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. 2, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix.

And A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 481, by the trinitarian United Bible Societies tells us:

"Instead of the usual meaning of dia tou haimatos tou idiou [`through the blood of the own'], it is possible that the writer of Acts intended his readers to understand the expression to mean `with the blood of his Own.' (It is not necessary to suppose, with Hort, that huiou may have dropped out after tou idiou, though palaeographically such an omission would have been easy.) This absolute use of ho idios is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that `his Own' (ho idios) was a title which early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to `the Beloved'."

Therefore, we can see that a rendering similar to RSV's "the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own son [or `beloved']" is obviously an honest, proper rendering.

Although the UBS Committee didn't actually commit itself one way or another on this rendering of tou idiou at Acts 20:28, it did mention that

"some have thought [it] to be a slight probability that tou idiou is used here as the equivalent of tou idiou huiou [`his own Son']." - p. 481.

Obviously this includes those trinitarian scholars who translated the Revised Standard Version (1971 ed.) and Today's English Version.

Since so many respected trinitarian scholars admit the possibility (and even the probability) of such honest alternate non-trinitarian translations for Acts 20:28, this scripture can't honestly be used as proof for a trinity concept, and Bowman's insistence that it be so used is certainly misleading (at best)! And his insistence that the NWT has dishonestly translated here is certainly dishonest in itself!

For more, see:
ACTS 20:28 (In Defense of the NWT)

Does Acts 20:28 really say that God bought the church with his "own" blood? (SFBT)

Acts 20:28 ("God...with his own blood") (Examining the Trinity)

A Response to Alleged New World Translation "Errors" (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

"The Sahidic Coptic version...does not speak of 'the church of God which he purchased with his own blood,' (Acts 20:28) (NWT and Coptic)

"Jehovah" 50 or 237 places in the New Testament? (Examining Countess' list)

2010-11-30T11:03:00.000-08:00

As a part of his attack upon the NWT's `dishonest' use of "Jehovah" in the NT, Mr. Countess uses a list (Table IV, p. 104) to "prove" that the NWT translators, editors, and publishers are hypocritically dishonest! He claims that there are only 50 places in the NT where the inspired writer has quoted OT scriptures which actually use "Jehovah." Therefore, he tells us there should be a maximum of 50 places where the NWT has `honestly' changed "Lord" or "God" in the NT to "Jehovah" (to match the original OT quote)! And yet the NWT has used "Jehovah" in 237 places in the NT! Even worse, only 39 of them (out of a possible 50) are places where the NT actually quotes * an OT scripture using "Jehovah" (according to Mr. Countess)! Therefore, according to this trinitarian "scholar" and Presbyterian minister, the NWT has dishonestly and hypocritically used "Jehovah" in 198 out of the 237 instances (about 85% of the time)! {Please see my JHVHNT study} Below is the first part of Table IV (p. 104) which Mr. Countess uses in support of his extremely serious charges:

TABLE IV

"Jehovah's" in the Main Text of NWT

Book.....YHWH in OT text...NWT based on YHWH..not based on YHWH

Matthew..........8.....................7 ............................. 11

Mark.............. 2 ................... 2.................................7

Luke............... 2................... 2............................... 34

John............... 2................... 1................................. 4

Etc.

[In other words, Countess is claiming that there are only 8 places in Matthew which quote or refer to an OT use of YHWH ('Jehovah'). Then he claims that the NWT uses 18 "Jehovahs" in the Book of Matthew. Of those 18, he claims that only 7 of them are actually based on a passage in the OT which uses YHWH. Then he claims that the 11 other "Jehovahs" in the Book of Matthew in the NWT are NOT based on a use of YHWH in the OT!!]

Why don't we actually examine the accuracy of this table by Mr. Countess? That is the only way that one can truly determine who is being dishonest!

For example, notice that in his table he claims that John only quoted twice from the OT where it originally used "Jehovah," whereas the NWT has used "Jehovah" 5 times in the Gospel of John. Furthermore, of those 5 times, he claims, only one is actually based on an OT use of "Jehovah"! In other words, the NWT is dishonest in 4 of its 5 uses of "Jehovah" in the Gospel of John because they are not based on an OT use of "Jehovah"!

We have seen that even respected trinitarian scholars disagree as to whether certain NT scriptures are quotes (or clear, direct references) to OT scriptures or not. Sometimes the evidence is simply not strong enough to make it certain. However, for a Bible to disagree with all other Bibles and scholars in 80% (4 out of 5) of such cases might justify an accusation of dishonesty.

The five uses of "Jehovah" in John by the NWT are Jn 1:23; 6:45; 12:13; and 12:38 (twice). Is it really true, as Countess claims, that only one of these uses a quote from the OT where "Jehovah" was originally used?

(1) ALL of the trinitarian Bible translations I used above to determine what was a quote from the OT and what was not (NKJV; RSV; NRSV; NASB; NIV; REB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); JB; NJB; MLB; Moffatt; and Beck) show Jn 1:23 to be a quote from the OT: Is. 40:3 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV actually uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(2) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Jn 6:45 to be a quote from the OT: Is. 54:13 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts).

(3) Six of those same trinitarian Bibles (NKJV; NASB; JB; NJB; Moffatt; and Beck) show Jn 12:13 to be a quote from the OT: Ps. 118:26 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(4) & (5) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Jn 12:38 to be a quote from the OT: Is. 53:1 (which does use "Jehovah" once in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword `LORD' here (once only, however) which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original! The only possible accusation of "dishonesty" here could be the fact that the NWT has rendered both `Lord's in Jn 12:38 as "Jehovah" whereas the original being quoted uses only one "Jehovah." However, the context certainly suggests that the first "Lord" is directed to Jehovah also. And a number of Hebrew New Testament translations have rendered both `Lord's at Jn 12:38 as "Jehovah." This includes the two I have in my possession which are translated by respected trinitarians: (1) by the United Bible Societies, 1983 printing; and (2) Delitzsch's Hebrew New Testament, The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1981 printing.

So just how is the NWT being "dishonest" by using "Jehovah" 5 times in these 4 verses in the Gospel of John where John is quoting from the OT? And how honest is Mr. Countess when he tells us that only one use of "Jehovah" in the Gospel of John in the NWT is supported by a quote from the OT? Exactly who is being dishonest?

Another good example from Mr. Countess' table is that of Mark.

In Mark, he claims, there are only two times that Mark quoted from the OT where "Jehovah" was used in the original OT manuscripts. But there are 9 times in Mark that the NWT has used "Jehovah." Therefore, according to Countess, the NWT has used the Divine Name in Mark "dishonestly" 7 times!
All of the 9 uses of "Jehovah" in Mark by the NWT are: Mark 1:3; 5:19; 11:9; 12:11; 12:29 (twice); 12:30; 12:36; and 13:20. Is it really true that only two of these use a quote from the OT where "Jehovah" was originally used?

(1) ALL of the 13 trinitarian Bible translations I used above to determine what is considered a quote from the OT and what is not show Mk 1:3 to be a quote from Isaiah 40:3 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts).

(2) NONE of those same trinitarian Bibles indicates Mk 5:19 to be a quote from the OT. However, the context makes the connection to Jehovah probable. In addition, 7 Hebrew New Testament translations do use "Jehovah" at Mk 5:19. This includes the two respected trinitarian Hebrew New Testaments I have: Delitzsch's and the UBS'. It certainly does not seem dishonest for "Jehovah" to be used here, but it apparently is not a quote from the OT.

(3) SIX of those same trinitarian Bibles (NKJV; NASB; JB; NJB; Moffatt; and Beck) show Mk 11:9 to be a quote from Ps. 118:26 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original! The NIVSB also tells us in a footnote for Mk 11:9, "A quotation of Ps. 118:26." Also 14 Hebrew New Testaments use "Jehovah" at Mk 11:9. This includes the two modern, respected trinitarian Hebrew New Testaments I have in my possession.

(4) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:11 to be a quote from Ps. 118:23 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(5) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:29 ("Hear, O Israel, the Lord God....") to be a quote from the OT: Deut. 6:4 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(6) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:29 (last part of verse: "...the Lord is one.") to be a quote from the OT: Deut. 6:4 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(7) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:30 to be a quote from Deut. 6:5 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(8) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:36 to be a quote from Ps. 110:1 (which does use "Jehovah" in the original OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (`LORD') here which indicates "Jehovah" was in the original!

(9) NONE of those same trinitarian Bibles shows Mk 13:20 to be a quote from the OT. However, as in Mk 5:19 above, the context makes the connection probable. In addition there are 10 Hebrew New Testament translations which use "Jehovah" here in Mk 13:20. This includes the 2 respected trinitarian translations I have in my possession. It certainly does not seem dishonest for "Jehovah" to be used here, although it does not appear to be a quote from the OT.

It is very obvious that at least 7 of the 9 uses of "Jehovah" in Mark by the NWT are from quotes by Mark of the OT which also used "Jehovah"!

So exactly who is being dishonest? Are there really only 2 places in Mark where an OT passage using "Jehovah" is being quoted or referred to by Mark? Mr. Countess insists there are!

Everyone else says there are at least 7! And some other respected trinitarian sources agree that "Jehovah" is also an appropriate rendering in the two other places the NWT uses "Jehovah" in the Gospel of Mark!

So, honestly, exactly who is being dishonest?

-----------------------------------------------
Note

* Although it was the most certain determinant, the NWT translators did not restrict themselves entirely to exact quotes of specific OT verses when they restored the Divine Name to the NT. They admitted that they took into consideration the context of the NT itself (especially if it included a common description or popular phrase frequently found also in the OT which normally included God's personal name) whether or not to restore the name `Jehovah.' But it was extremely rare that there weren't Hebrew translations of the NT (usually by trinitarian translators) which had used "Jehovah" at that same place and, therefore, reinforced their decision. These Hebrew translations are listed in the 1951 ed. of the NWT on pp. 30-33 and 1984 NWT Reference Bible on pp. 9-10.

For more, see:
"Jehovah" in The New Testament (SFBT)

NWT - Criticism by Zondervan's So Many Versions? - "Jehovah" in the New Testament (Defending the NWT)

On the Form of the Divine Name "Jehovah" (INDNWT)

God's Name and the "New Testament" (WBTS)

Should God's name “Jehovah" appear in the New Testament? (SFBT)

YHWH in the New Testament (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

God / a god (Countess)

2010-11-30T11:02:00.000-08:00

The fact that Jesus (and even faithful prophets, kings, judges, and angels) can be (and were) called "gods" by the inspired Bible writers in no way makes those Bible writers "polytheistic" as Countess, in effect, claims! The term in those days merely meant someone who was considered by God's people to be a "mighty person" in some respect. It did not necessarily imply an equality with or a challenger to the Most High God! The fact that the term has come to mean only "false gods" today has nothing to do with the meaning as used by the ancient inspired Bible writers, and Countess and most Bible scholars know this fact very well! (E.g., see Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:33 footnotes in the NIV Study Bible; Ps. 8:6; Ps. 45:7; and John 10:34 footnotes in the New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970; and pp. 1133, 1134 in the New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House, 1982. Also see the TRUE and BOWGOD studies.)

It is completely untrue to say, as do some trinitarians, that the words for "god" or "gods" in scripture are applied only to either the one true God or false gods (p. 44, Countess). To also say that the NWT is guilty of promoting polytheism because it has rendered "a god" at Jn 1:1 (as Countess tells us on pp. 45, 58, 90) is incredibly dishonest!

What Countess has done is play on the ignorance of the vast majority of Christendom. He distorts and lies about what Jehovah's Witnesses have said and taught. He lies and distorts what knowledgeable NT scholars know about the actual language used by the inspired NT writers. All this is done in a manner that seems scholarly and proper to those who have little knowledge of the NT grammar and principles involved. Not only is this writer in extremely grave danger when God's judgment arrives (Rev. 21:8; 22:15), but so are the many trinitarian scholars, pastors, churches, etc. who should know better but still promote his dishonest work (and others like it)!

There is one common uniting bond among those who claim to have basic scholarly knowledge of the Bible languages (including those whose backgrounds really do attest to such knowledge) and who write popular books defending the Trinity doctrine and attacking the JWs on this knowledge: deceit.

It comes in all forms, e.g., distortion, dishonesty, and outright lies. This includes such admired trinity-defenders as Dr. Walter Martin (Baptist minister and "anti-cult expert" - Kingdom of the Cults and many others), Robert M. Bowman (Martin's successor - Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Baker Book House, 1993 and others), Prof. Arthur M. Bowser (Born-Again minister and college professor - What Every Jehovah's Witness Should Know), Robert H. Countess (Ph.D. in New Testament Text, Presbyterian Minister, Congregational Church minister, college professor and instructor in NT Greek - The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament), and others. - See the following study papers: MINOR (pp. 7-16); I AM (pp. 9-11); NWT (pp. 6-19); MARTIN; BOWGOD; BOWHS; BOWQT; BWF (footnote #1); I AM (footnotes #1, 2); HEB (f.n. #1); MINOR (p. 20); and NWT-B (this paper).

There are two important points to consider concerning the common, uniting bonds of dishonesty and lies found in most (if not all) popular books defending the trinity.

(1) An American should strongly resent this disavowal of the American tradition of truth and fair play.

Even more important, a Christian must detest willing liars who purposely defame others and knowingly distort God's word (Jn 4:24; Eph. 4:25; 5:6-11; Rev. 21:8, 27; 22:15; Rev. 14:5 [the NIVSB footnote says: "14:5 No lie. Contrast Ro 1:25; see Isa 53:9."]; 2 Thess. 1:8-9; 2:9-13; Ex. 20:16; Prov. 6:16-19; 19:5; Is. 28:15-18). Just who is following the guidance of the Spirit of Truth concerning the knowledge of God? (Jn 16:13) Popular trinitarian defenders like Countess - - or JW's?

True Christians: "In fact, in everything we do we try to show that we are true ministers of God. .... We have been truthful ... We stand true to the Lord whether others honor us or despise, whether they criticize us or commend us. We are honest, but they call us liars. The world ignores us, but we are known to God" - 2 Cor. 6:4, 7, 8, 9, Living Bible. "Enter in through the narrow gate.... small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life and only a few find it." - Matt. 7:13, 14, New International Version.

False Christians: "For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." - "Not every one who says to me [Jesus], `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy [NIVSB footnote: "7:22 prophesy. In the NT this verb primarily means to give a message from God, not necessarily to predict." This includes, of course proclaiming the truth of the scriptures, God's inspired message.] in your name...and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" - Matt. 7:13, 21-23, The NIV Study Bible.

"But the...idolaters and all liars - their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second [final, everlasting] death." - "One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls....showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. .... Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful .... Outside are the ... idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." Aren't those who promote, support, and teach the "knowledge" of those popular trinitarian teachers such as Countess actually ones who practice falsehood? - Rev. 21:8,9,10,27; 22:15, NIV.

It is imperative that everyone who loves God and desires salvation very carefully examine both sides of this issue. This cannot be done by trusting Countess, Bowman, Martin, etc. to truthfully, honestly, wholly reveal both sides!

(2) IF the trinity doctrine is true (and JW's are wrong), why would anyone (especially a Christian) have to lie about its "proofs"?? Think very carefully about this. There simply is no clear, undisputed evidence to support the trinity doctrine. All "evidence" is either ambiguous (also capable of a more probable non-trinitarian interpretation) or outright lies disputed by even other (usually more reputable) trinitarian scholars. This could not be if this extremely important knowledge of God and Christ were true! (Jn 17:1, 3; 2 Thess. 1:8, 9)

Also see:
NWT - Criticism by Zondervan's So Many Versions? - "God/a god" (DNWT)

For a more complete list of John 1:1, see:
John 1:1

CLAIM: The NWT is "Doctrinally Biased; Designed to Make the Bible Fit Jehovah's Witness Doctrine."

2010-11-30T11:01:00.000-08:00

Bowman's Attacks on the NWT (the New World Translation, the Bible translation by Jehovah's Witnesses) in his Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses

Bowman claims in Chapter 4 of his book:

"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." - p. 65, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses, Baker Book House, 1991.

What Bowman apparently means 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 he supports 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 JW's 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. I doubt, for example, 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; CHART; PRIMER; I-AM; PHIL; 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!

Also see:
Is The New World Translation Biased and Unscholarly? (INDNWT)

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

NWT - A totally LITERAL translation with absolutely no paraphrase or interpolation (needed additions for clarification)?

2010-11-30T11:00:00.000-08:00

In an attempt to "balance out" his attacks on the NWT which are almost exclusively devoted to a defense of the trinity doctrine, Countess has thrown in a short chapter which includes a few, short attacks on the NWT's rendering of a few NT words. In so doing he pretends that the NWT translators have claimed to have produced a totally literal translation with absolutely no paraphrase or interpolation (needed additions for clarification)! This is absolutely false! As any Bible translator would readily admit, there is no way to translate the NT Greek found in the Bible manuscripts without some paraphrase and addition. The most literal English Bibles ever produced (excluding interlinears, of course), whether KJV, ASV, NASB, RSV, etc., frequently add words and phrases to make it understandable to English-speaking readers. They also all paraphrase difficult idioms and usages of the first century Greek language to bring out the intended meaning!* Countess knows this as well as anyone, and is being incredibly dishonest here.

A "paraphrase" Bible is one which is primarily paraphrased, such as the Living Bible, and a "literal" Bible is one that is primarily literal in its rendering, such as the New American Standard Bible (widely considered the most literal of modern Bibles). For instance, the actual word-for-word rendering of the NT Greek for Rev. 2:22, 23 is:

"Look! I am throwing her into bed and the committing adultery with her into affliction/tribulation great if ever not they will repent out of the works of her. And the children of her I will kill in death and will know all the congregations that I am the searching kidneys and hearts..."

The literal Bible (NASB) renders this:

"Behold, I will cast her upon a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. And I will kill her children with pestilence; and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts..." - NASB (compare RSV).

Notice that, among a number of other differences, "of sickness" has been interpolated (added) and "kidneys" has been paraphrased as "minds."

The paraphrase Bible (LB) renders it:

"Pay attention now to what I am saying: I will lay her upon a sickbed of intense affliction, along with her immoral followers, unless they turn again to me, repenting of their sin with her; and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches deep within men's hearts, and minds..." - LB.

Obviously a paraphrase Bible is much freer to use words and phrases that are not literal but which attempt to convey a similar thought overall. The more literal a Bible is, the more stiff, wooden, and potentially confusing it is to its readers. But even the most literal Bibles must paraphrase (as little as possible) and interpolate (as little as possible) for clarity.

The NWT (1971 ed.) renders the above passage as:

"Look! I am about to throw her into a sickbed, and those committing adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. And her children I will kill with deadly plague, so that all the congregations will know that I am he who searches the kidneys and hearts..." - NWT.

Isn't this translation at least as literal as that of the NASB?

In spite of what Countess claims the NWT translation principles are, here is what the 1951 NWT actually said in its foreword:

"The translation of the Scriptures into a modern language should be rendered...in the speech forms current among the people. We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures [in other words, this is to be classified as a literal Bible, not a paraphrase]. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not ... hide the thought. .... Watch has been kept against taking liberties with texts for the mere sake of brevity or short cuts and against substitution of a modern parallel, where the rendering of the original idea makes good sense." - p. 9.

So, as with all other "literal" Bibles (including the famed NASB, ASV, and RSV), the NWT does at times "interpolate" (add understood information) and "paraphrase." But it does so much less often than other modern Bible translations.
-----------------------------------------

* (Of course these methods of translating hold true in the Old Testament as well. For example, the literal word-for-word rendering of the original Hebrew of Ps. 31:9 (or 31:10) is:

"Favor me O Jehovah for trouble I am in has wasted away with grief my eye, my
soul, and my belly." - The Interlinear Bible, Baker Book House, 1982.

[The Hebrew word which was translated "trouble" here by the Interlinear Bible is tsarar which literally means "to bind, tie up, be restricted, narrow, scant, or cramped" - #6887a - New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. And "grief" here in the Interlinear Bible is kaas which literally means: "VEXATION, anger", #3708a, New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible; compare Strong's Concordance.]

This has been rendered as:

"Show me favor, O Jehovah, for I am in sore straits. With vexation my eye has become weak, my soul and my belly." - NWT.

And,

"Be gracious to me, O LORD, for I am in distress; My eye is wasted away from grief,
my soul and my body also." - NASB.

And,

"O Lord, have mercy on me in my anguish. My eyes are red from weeping; my
health is broken from sorrow." - Living Bible. )

Also see:
NWT - Criticism by Zondervan's So Many Versions? - "Too Literal" (DNWT)

Defending the charge that the NWT translators made up a rule for the word for "God/god" (theos). (John 1:1)

2010-11-30T10:59:00.000-08:00

Another major attack on the honesty of the NWT by Mr. Countess concerns the use of the definite article ("the") with the word for "God/god" (theos) in NT Greek.

He implies that the NWT translators have made up a rule that whenever the article appears with the word theos, it should be rendered into English as "God," and whenever theos appears without the article, "a god" should be used:

"What, then, is the import of translating theos `a god'? If it is simply a matter of the presence or absence of the article, then why cannot a principle be established and followed throughout the New Testament that ho [`the'] theos be translated `God' and theos be rendered `a god'? This is, to be sure, the implication of the line of reasoning set forth in the NWT appendix." - p. 44.

This is not what the NWT appendix said. And it is not implied. As Mr. Countess well knows, the use of theos at Jn 1:1c is in the nominative case (the form used for subjects and predicate nouns and which has the surest use of the article) and has no other words to modify or describe it further. This eliminates the many exceptions to article use (or non-use) found in other situations.

The nominative case for theos is theos. This very same word in its other cases is: theou; theon; theo ; thee. Most of these cases, unlike the nominative case (but see the THEON study), use the article very irregularly and cannot be relied on to use or not use the article in a meaningful way to speakers (and writers) of English! (see DEF study paper).

However, in addition to different cases, there are still several exceptions to the use of the article even with the nominative case theos. The most notable is the irregularity caused by using a preposition ("in," "on," "of," "with," "to," etc.) in conjunction with theos: "Man of God;" "God of Israel;" "with God;" etc. (The other exceptions are found in the writings of Paul, but since Paul did not write John 1:1, we will not go into these additional details. - See the MARTIN study.) That Countess is not ignorant of this commonly known fact of NT Greek is shown by his own statement on p. 47:

"Blass-Debrunner, basing comment upon an exhaustive study by Bernhard Weiss, observed that whenever the Jewish or Christian God is in view, the article is present, but that it may be omitted after prepositions and if in the genitive when depending on an anarthrous noun."

Countess devotes 44 pages (33% or 1/3 of the entire book!) to showing the NWT's "dishonest" and "hypocritical" use of theos (`God/god'). 27 pages in the appendix list all uses of the word (whether theos, theou, theon, theo or thee or with prepositions or not) in the left column to show that it has the article with it in the NT text. In the right column, of course, he lists all of the other uses which do not have the article in the NT text. In those columns he shows how the NWT has translated the term. He gleefully points out that a few of the uses of the term that have the article are not translated "God" in the NWT, and a few of them that do not have the article are not translated "a god." His conclusion that the NWT has dishonestly, hypocritically not followed a rule that he says they made concerning this usage is incredibly dishonest itself.

Of course some of the forms of the word which often have irregular article usage (as discussed above) are sometimes translated in the NWT contrary to Countess' "rule" for the NWT rendering of theos! But these forms are not the form as used in Jn 1:1c and are well known by NT Greek scholars as forms that use the definite article irregularly: sometimes they have the article when it seems (in English) that they should not, and sometimes they do not have the article when it seems (in English) that they should!

But when we eliminate all the forms which use the article irregularly and stick to the nominative theos without prepositions (as found at Jn 1:1c itself), we find that in all the writings of John (and the other Gospel writers) the article is used with theos whenever he truly intends the meaning "God"!

Countess concludes Chapter 4:

"Finally, and most importantly, table V demonstrated how NWT applied or did not apply its principle formulated in the appendix to John 1:1. And it is the investigator's [Countess himself] firm conclusion that NWT demonstrates utter disregard for the canon thus set forth in its own appendix. .... It bears repeating: NWT has been 94 percent of the time unfaithful to its own principle of translation."

Although the "rule," "principle," or "canon" that the article ("the") is always with theos (in all its forms) when it means "God" and is not with theos (all forms) when it means "a god" IS NOT SAID NOR INTENDED BY THE WRITERS OF THE NWT APPENDIX, but INVENTED by Countess himself, nevertheless, it actually is the case 80% of the time in the New Testament! The NWT, however, really said in the appendix referred to by Countess that in constructions similar to Jn 1:1c the indefinite article ("a") is usually inserted by all Bible translators. It lists a number of such places (including John 4:19 "a prophet;" 6:70 "a devil;" 9:24, 25 "a sinner;" 10:33 "a man;" 12:6 "a thief") where a predicate noun (nominative case and without prepositions) which is without an article comes before its verb (as in Jn 1:1c).

It then concluded: "If the indefinite article can be inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, no objection can rightly be raised against inserting the indefinite article `a' before the anarthrous [without article] theos in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read `a god'." - p. 776, Appendix, NWT, 1951 ed.

For much more concerning John 1:1, see:
John 1:1

Stauros / Torture Stake (Response to accusations made by Robert H. Countess)

2010-11-28T12:23:00.001-08:00

STAUROS - Countess objects to stauros being translated as "torture stake" in the NWT as opposed to the traditional "cross." - pp. 85-87. But look at this statement by one of Christendom's favorite NT Greek experts:

"STAUROS ... 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. The shape of the latter [the cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea [Babylon], and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ." - W. E. Vine, p. 248, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers. - Also see "Cross" in Reasoning from the Scriptures and "Torture Stake" in Insight on the Scriptures (Watchtower publications).

Also see:
NWT - Criticism by Zondervan's So Many Versions? - "Torture Stake" vs. "Cross" (DNWT)

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 (INDNWT)

The STAUROS of the New Testament: Cross or Stake? (INDNWT)

Advantages of the New World Translation: Did Jesus Die on a Cross? (JW United)

Cross or Stake (Stauros) (pastorrussel)

What does the original Greek reveal as to the shape of the instrument on which Jesus was put to death? (JWQ&A)
Did Jesus die on a CROSS or an upright STAKE? (jwitness forum)

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);

Jehovah's Witnesses were not the first nor the last to believe that both Greek 'stauros' and Latin 'crux' originally meant stake or pole. "Little Evidence Jesus Died on a Cross, Says Scholar" - AOL news article

"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 (SFBT)

Should the Cross be venerated? (JWQ&A)

Does it matter if Jesus died on a cross? (SFBT)

The Sign of the Cross (pastorrussel)

Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross?
Should Christians use the cross as an object of veneration? (WBTS)

Why True Christians Do Not Use the Cross in Worship
A Biblical explanation of why true Christians do not use the cross in worship. (WBTS)

Beliefs and Customs That Displease God (#6 in list) (WBTS)

Should Icons Be Used in Worship? (WBTS)

How Does God View Aids to Worship? (WBTS)

Tasso - "rightly disposed"; Acts 13:48 (Response to accusations made by Robert H. Countess)

2010-11-28T12:21:00.000-08:00

TASSO - Countess objects to the NWT rendering of this verb in Acts 13:48 ("all those who were rightly disposed [tasso] for everlasting life became believers") because he does not like to see a standard "proof" for pre-destination being countered. - p. 84. You see, if the meaning of tasso that Countess (and most other Pre-Destinarians) insists on here is "appointed" (or its equivalent), then this verse seems to say that God (or somebody) has pre-determined that these specific individuals are to be saved! This is a terrible accusation to make about the God of Love! To say that He has determined exactly who will be saved (and who will exist in "eternal torment") before they are even born is, in effect, to call God the most cruel person ever.

But tasso has a number of meanings including:

"esp. to draw up in order of battle, to form, array, marshal .... to fall in, form in order .... also generally, to agree upon, settle" - Liddell and Scott, p. 793, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1994 printing.

Notice what highly respected (by Christendom) New Testament language scholar A. T. Robertson says about Acts 13:48 and tasso:

"Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tasso, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. .... The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves [placed themselves in orderly arrangement; put themselves in line] on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away." - p. 200, Vol. 3, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman press.

Although the Living Bible is a paraphrase Bible, its translators still show their understanding of the word tasso by this translation: "and as many as wanted [tasso] eternal life, believed." A footnote for "wanted" says: "Or, `were disposed to,' or `ordained to.'" - Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.

Noted NT Greek expert and author, Dr. Alfred Marshall, literally translated tasso at Acts 13:48 as
"as many as were having been disposed [tasso] to life eternal" - The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, p. 389, Zondervan Publishing, 1975.

And Adam Clarke wrote:

"[Acts 13,] Verse 48. As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.— This text has been most pitifully misunderstood. Many suppose that it simply means that those in that assembly who were fore-ordained; or predestinated by God's decree, to eternal life, believed under the influence of that decree. Now, we should be careful to examine what a word means, before we attempt to fix its meaning. Whatever Tetagmenoi may mean, which is the word we translate `ordained,' it is neither protetagmenoi nor proorismenoi which the apostle uses, but simply tetagmenoi, which includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind. And if it even did, it would be rather hazardous to say that all those who believed at this time were such as actually persevered unto the end, and were saved unto eternal life. But, leaving all these precarious matters, what does the word tetagmenos mean? The verb tattw or tassw [tasso] signifies to place, set, order, appoint, dispose; hence it has been considered here as implying the disposition or readiness of mind of several persons in the congregation, such as the religious proselytes mentioned in Acts 13:43, who possessed the reverse of the disposition of those Jews who spake against those things, contradicting and blaspheming, Acts 13:45." - Adam Clarke's Commentary, pp. 597-598, Vol. 5B.

I have been told that the Full Life Study Bible also says about tasso in Acts 13:48:

"Some [such as Countess and his publishers] have understood this verse as teaching arbitrary predestination. However, neither the context nor the word translated `ordained' (Greek tetagmenoi from tasso) warrant this interpretation." Furthermore, it says Acts 13:48

"explicitly emphasizes human responsibility in accepting or rejecting eternal life. The best rendering of tetagmenoi [tasso], therefore, is `were disposed.' `and as many as were disposed to eternal life believed.'" [material in brackets has been added by me, as usual - RDB.]

God has predetermined that certain classes of individuals will receive eternal life or eternal death (e.g., those obeying his laws, those believing and obeying his Son, etc. will receive eternal life; those not obeying his laws, those not believing and obeying his Son, those who are liars, idolaters, etc. will not receive eternal life). But He has obviously not predetermined exactly which individuals will be in these predetermined classes!

Consider:
It would be senseless for Jesus to exhort men to walk on the difficult road that leads to life and avoid the broad easy road that leads to destruction (Mt. 7:13, 14) if their fate were already determined and they could do nothing about it anyway!

And the Lord (or Peter) would be hypocritical if God had already predetermined who perishes and who lives eternally when he said that he did not want anyone to perish but wants everyone to come to repentance! (2 Peter 3:9) What difference would it make for anyone whom God had already predetermined to eternal torment to "come to repentance"? And how could God "not want anyone to perish" and not be able to accomplish it? If he truly didn't want anyone to perish, the all-powerful God would provide everyone an equal opportunity to receive eternal life! (And He has!)

And the Apostle John would be cruelly misleading us (if he really believed God had already predetermined which individuals will live eternally) when he said: "The man who does the will of God lives forever." (1 John 2:17, NIV). Obviously, if God had already decided before you were born that you will not be saved, it wouldn't matter if you did God's will perfectly or not at all!

In the same way, Jesus would be very cruel (and dishonest) in his answer to the man who asked "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus quoted to him the two greatest commandments and said to the man, "Do this, and you will live." Again, if God had already predetermined those who live eternally and those who "eternally roast in hell," it would be senseless to ask "what shall I do to inherit eternal life" and equally senseless to tell the man what he should do to receive eternal life!

And why would Jesus tell anyone, "be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life" - Rev. 2:10, NASB. According to the pre-destination idea it was already decided before you were born!

In fact, there are so many scriptures throughout the Bible showing the falsity of the pre-destination doctrine that it is inexcusable for anyone to teach such a God-defaming pagan doctrine!

Psyche / Soul (Response to accusations made by Robert H. Countess)

2010-11-28T12:17:00.000-08:00

PSYCHE - psyche is the NT Greek word sometimes translated "soul" in English Bibles. It is used as the equivalent of the OT Hebrew nephesh. Countess, along with many members of Christendom, has accepted the ancient Greek pagan philosophy meaning of this word, insisting that it refers to some invisible, conscious, immortal, ghost-like entity within a body which is released at death and then either goes to heaven to live in bliss or to "hell" to be excruciatingly tormented for all eternity! This "immortal soul" doctrine began to be accepted into Christendom around the time that the equally unscriptural (but equally important to influential pagans of the time) Trinity doctrine was being introduced.

"Among the ancient Hebrews soul was the equivalent of the principle of life as embodied in living creatures, and this meaning is continued throughout the Bible..... It was Augustine [circa 400 A.D.] especially who, in part on religious grounds and in part as the disciple of later Greek philosophy, taught the simple, immaterial, and spiritual nature of the human soul - a view which has remained that of ... Christian theologians down to the present time." - p. 7894, Vol. 21, The Universal Standard Encyclopedia, 1956.

"The Hebrew term for `soul' (nefesh), that which breathes, was used by Moses ..., signifying an `animated being' and applicable equally to nonhuman beings.... New Testament usage of psyche (`soul') was comparable to nefesh." - p. 152, Vol. 15, The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropaedia.

Even the ancient pagan Greeks themselves used the word psyche, which literally means "breath," with many meanings. For example in ancient Greek it could mean: life, things dear as life, heart, appetite, and understanding. - p. 903, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell and Scott, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.

And the most-respected of Christendom's authorities themselves admit these many meanings for psyche in the NT scriptures:

"1. breath (Lat. anima), i.e. a. the breath of life; the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing: Acts xx. 10; of animals, Rev. viii. 9 ....b. life ... Mt. vi.25; Lk. xii. 22... Jn x.11,15,17; xiii.37 sq.; xv.13; 1 Jn. iii.16; [etc.] .... c. that in which there is life; a living being: psyche zosa, a living soul, 1 Cor. xv.45 ["Adam became a living soul" - NASB] .... [etc.]" - p. 677 (#5590), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, J. H. Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing.

"SOUL. 1. The usual Hebrew word [nephesh] ... occurs 755 times in the OT. As is clear from Gn 2:7, the primary meaning is `possessing life'. Thus it is frequently used of animals (Gn. 1:20, 24, 30; 9:12, 15-16; Ezk. 47:9). Sometimes it is identified with the blood, as something which is essential to physical existence (Gn. 9:4; Lv. 17:10-14; Dt. 12:22-24). .... the seat of physical appetite ... source of emotion .... 2. Gk. psyche, the corresponding term to nephesh in the NT..." - p. 1135, New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., Tyndale House Publishers, 1982.

In discussing the OT Hebrew word for "soul" (nephesh), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says:

"So too living creatures can be described as souls: everything that lives, all living things .... A clear indication of how unfamiliar the OT is with the concept of a soul separate from the body, or a soul which becomes separated from the body at death, is the fact that it can speak of a dead person as the soul of that person, and mean by this phrase the dead person in his corporeality [the actual dead body!] (Num. 6:6)." - p. 680, Vol. 3.

This same highly-respected work of Christendom also says of the NT term for 'soul':

"psyche embraces the whole natural being and life of man for which he concerns himself and of which he takes constant care. Thus Matt. 6:25 speaks of being anxious for the psyche, i.e. for its food. Life (psyche) and body (soma) are God's handiwork: therefore they are of more importance than the food and clothing about which man is so concerned. At Lk. 12:19 the rich man addresses his soul, i.e. he speaks to himself. However, he does not bargain with the fact that his psyche, i.e. his life, can be taken from him at any moment. .... psyche [also] means the inner life of man, equivalent to the ego, person, or personality... In 2 Cor. 1:23 Paul pledges his `soul' in a kind of curse upon himself, as a form of solemn asseveration. The reference here is not only to the life, but to the whole man, with all that he believes, hopes and strives for. .... Although the Hellenistic term psyche appears more frequently in the later epistles of the NT than in other parts ..., it must not be imagined that this implies the concept of the soul as the real and valuable part of man, the eternal and permanent element [as in the pagan-originated "immortal soul" doctrine]. That would be a misunderstanding.... This is just what the NT does not teach" - pp. 683, 686, Vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.

Even "immortal soul" and "eternal torment" proponent W. E. Vine admits that the meanings for psyche include life, the seat of personality, the seat of will and purpose, the seat of appetite, persons, animate creatures, human or other, and is even applied to animals and dead bodies. - p. 1067, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

And yes, that most literal of modern trinitarian Bibles, the NASB, actually translates psyche as heart, heartily, life (more often than any other meaning), mind, person, soul, etc.
(For more quotes from other sources, see pp. 377, 379 in Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1989 printing.)

The word psyche is used so often (and with so many different meanings) in the New Testament that it is not difficult for someone to find a few scriptures that could be interpreted in the way that "eternal soul" devotees would like. However, even Countess finds only two "which clearly contradict the view enunciated by NWT that man is soul." These are Matt. 10:28 and Rev. 6:9-10. - p. 82. (Actually, the NWT translators acknowledge the fact that "soul" or psyche has several different meanings which include the person (or animal) himself, and life itself. And all those who are baptized as JWs have been taught this fact also.)

Countess would have us believe that there can be no other interpretation of Matt. 10:28 other than proof for an "immortal soul" that survives the death of the body:

"Do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul [psyche]; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul [psyche] and body in Gehenna."

But consider: What does it mean to say a man can kill your body but not your psyche ["person" or "life"]?

Any man can kill you. Afterward he may even completely burn up your body or allow it to decompose to nothingness. That particular body will never return even in the resurrection. The person himself, however, may, if God wills it, be resurrected in a new, better, fleshly body or even in a perfect spirit body. No one but God alone, however, can cause that person or life to be restored.

Therefore, the human murderer can cause you to lose your life temporarily and your body to disappear forever, but he cannot destroy your life forever. He can permanently "kill your body, but is unable to kill your `person' or `life'." God, however, is to be feared much more than the human murderer, because He can permanently destroy both your body and your `person' or `life' (psyche) in that special "grave" which is reserved for those who will not be resurrected ("Gehenna" - - see HELL study).

As proof of this interpretation, we can see that an immortal "soul" could not be destroyed. However, this scripture says God can destroy it in "Hell" (Gehenna). Furthermore, we know that the traditional (but unscriptural) concept of "Hell" does not allow for the body to enter into it. But God will also destroy the body in Gehenna ("Hell" in most translations) according to this same scripture!

Obviously the body in this scripture is in the grave where it will be completely annihilated and from which the person himself (or his life) will never be resurrected. His life permanently ends in this grave - not in a "fiery hell"!

The only other scripture Countess can find to "disprove" the JW's is found at Rev. 6:9-10:

"And when He broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls [psyche - plural form] of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, `How long, O Lord, holy and true, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?'" - NASB.

Of course if you, like Countess (apparently), insist that this must be taken absolutely literally, then you may have a case. (Remember, however, that psyche can mean `lives,' `persons,' even dead bodies.) If this vision is recording a literally accurate event, then we see "souls" of dead people speaking to God. Reasonable Bible students, however, realize that the Bible (and the Book of Revelation in particular) often uses symbolism and figurative usage.

Why, at Gen. 4:10-11, for example, God says to Cain, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand." Obviously we should not take this literally. Abel's blood did not have a literal voice and did not literally cry out. (And the ground doesn't consciously open its mouth - - and, of course, doesn't even have a literal mouth.) This is figurative language indicating that God knows that Cain killed his brother and that Abel was terribly wronged by having his life taken from him and must be avenged! There must be justice! "Blood" here is not figurative of some mysterious ghost-like person speaking from the ground. It figuratively represents Abel's life which has been taken away by Cain.

Now notice how Jehovah's Witnesses have analyzed Rev. 6:9, 10:

After quoting Rev. 6:9, the study book, REVELATION - Its Grand Climax at Hand! tells us:

"What is that? A sacrificial altar up in heaven? Yes! It is the first time that John mentions an altar. Already, though, he has described Jehovah on His throne, the surrounding cherubs, the glassy sea, the lamps and the 24 elders carrying incense - all of these resembling features of the earthly tabernacle, Jehovah's sanctuary in Israel. (Exodus 25:17, 18; 40:24-27, 30-32; 1 Chron-icles 23:4) Should it, then, surprise us to find a symbolic altar of sacrifice also in heaven? - Exodus 40:29.

"Underneath this altar are `the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness work that they used to have.' What does this mean? These could not be disembodied souls - like those believed in by the pagan Greeks. (Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 18:4) Rather, John knows that the soul, or life, is symbolized by the blood, and when the priests at the ancient Jewish tabernacle slaughtered a sacrificial animal, they sprinkled the blood `round about upon the altar' or poured it `at the base of the altar of burnt offering.' (Leviticus 3:2, 8, 13; 4:7; 17:6, 11, 12) Hence, the animal's soul [or life which was poured out at the base of the altar] was closely identified with the altar of sacrifice. But why would the souls, or blood, of these particular servants of God be seen underneath a symbolic altar in heaven? Because their deaths are viewed as sacrificial.

"Indeed, all those who are begotten as spirit sons of God die a sacrificial death in behalf of Jehovah's sovereignty. (Philippians 3:8-11; compare 2:17) This is true in a very real sense of those whom John saw under the altar. They are anointed ones who in their day were martyred for their zealous ministry in upholding Jehovah's Word and sovereignty....

"The scenario continues to unfold: `And they cried with a loud voice, saying: "Until when, Sovereign Lord holy and true, are you refraining from judging and avenging our blood upon those who dwell on the earth?"' (Revelation 6:10) How can their souls, or blood, cry out for vengeance, since the Bible shows that the dead are unconscious? (Ecclesiastes 9:5) Well, did not righteous Abel's blood cry out after Cain murdered him? Jehovah then said to Cain: ... `Your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground.' (Genesis 4:10, 11; Hebrews 12:24) It was not that Abel's blood was literally uttering words. Rather, Abel had died as an innocent victim, and justice called out for his murderer to be punished. Similarly, those Christian martyrs are innocent, and in justice they must be avenged. (Luke 18:7, 8) The cry for vengeance is loud because many thousands have thus died. - Compare Jeremiah 15:15, 16." - pp. 100-101, Revelation - Its Grand Climax At Hand! 1988.

But it isn't just Jehovah's Witnesses who interpret Rev. 6:9, 10 this way. The popular New Testament scholar and author, William Barclay writes concerning this scripture:

"The souls of those who had been slain were there beneath the altar. That picture is taken directly from the sacrificial ritual of the Temple. For a Jew the most sacred part of any sacrifice was the blood; the blood was regarded as being the life and the life belonged to God (Leviticus 17:11-14). Because of that, there were special regulations for the offering of blood.

"`The rest of the blood of the bull the priest shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering' (Leviticus 4:7). That is to say, the blood is offered at the foot of the altar.

"This gives us the meaning of our passage here [Rev. 6:9, 10]. The souls of the martyrs are beneath the altar. That is to say, their life-blood has been poured out as an offering to God. .... But every life laid down for right and truth and God is ultimately ... an offering to God." - pp. 10-11, The Revelation of John, Revised Ed., Vol. 2, The Daily Study Bible Series, The Westminster Press, 1976.

Even noted Baptist scholar A. T. Robertson agrees here:

"[Rev. 6:]9. Under the altar (hupokato tou thusiasteriou). "Under" (hupokato), for the blood of the sacrifices was poured at the bottom of the altar (Lev 4:7). The altar of sacrifice (Ex. 39:39; 40:29), not of incense. The imagery, as in Hebrews, is from the tabernacle. .... This altar in heaven is symbolic, of course, the antitype for the tabernacle altar (Heb. 8:5). The Lamb was slain (5:6, 9, 12) and these martyrs have followed the example of their Lord. The souls (tas psuchas). The lives, for the life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11), were given for Christ (Phil. 2:17; II Tim. 4:6)." - p. 343, Vol. 6, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, Copyright 1960, Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The JW's interpretation of these two scriptures is certainly more correct than Countess' God-defaming interpretation that God has created all men with a conscious, immortal "soul" that will, for most of them, be conscious and aware of an excruciating torture for all eternity!

One last scripture to examine for its use of psyche:

This is the literal word-for-word translation of the NT Greek of the latter part of Luke 6:9 -

"If it is lawful to the sabbath to do good or to do bad, soul [psyche] to save or to destroy?"

Here is a translation as found in one modern literal Bible:

"Is it lawful to do good on the sabbaths, or to do ill? to save a soul [psyche] or to destroy it?" - Luke 6:9, KJIIV.

Here is the NWT rendering of the same scripture:

"Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do injury, to save or to destroy a soul [psyche]?"

Jesus is reasoning on the scriptures here. He has been accused by the Pharisees (who were looking for a reason to have him "legally" killed) of breaking the law of God because his disciples were doing "work" (plucking grain and eating it) on the sabbath. In reply Jesus asks if, according to the Law of God, it is not lawful to do certain good things on the sabbath. The answer, of course is yes. Some of these things include certain good works and the saving of a soul (life). He contrasts the doing of these legal things on the sabbath with the terrible things the Pharisees themselves are plotting to do on this sabbath: to do injury (to Jesus) and to destroy a soul [psyche] by having Jesus killed!

Now if the Pharisees are able to destroy a soul, then a "soul" (psyche) is not immortal (even when it is Jesus' soul)! To avoid this obvious (and proper) understanding nearly all "literal" Bibles of "traditional" Christendom translate psyche here as "life":

"to save LIFE [psyche] or to destroy it?" - KJV.

"LIFE [psyche] to save or to kill? - Young's Literal Translation.

"to save LIFE [psyche] or to destroy it?" - RSV.

"to save LIFE [psyche] or to destroy it?" - NRSV.

"to save a LIFE [psyche], or to destroy it?" - ASV.

"to save a LIFE [psyche], or to destroy it?" - NASB.

We certainly don't hear Countess complaining about the inconsistent translation (or paraphrasing) of the word psyche in these most literal of modern translations, do we?

Nevertheless, what we have been discussing is an interpretation of certain scriptures. Countess is supposedly criticizing the translations of scripture as found in the New World Translation! But where is any criticism of the NWT's translation of psyche in Countess' diatribe concerning the use of this word? In fact, there is no significant difference between the NWT and most other translations of the verses in question.

And the NWT is far more consistent than any other translation in rendering all instances of psyche as "soul" (and two times as "whole-souled - Eph. 6:6; Col. 3:23)! For example, in every instance where the much-praised literal Bible the NASB renders psyche as "everyone," "heart," "heartily," "mind(s)," and "person(s)," the NWT renders it "soul(s)" (and two times as "whole-souled). And in each of the 43 instances where the "super-literal" NASB translates psyche as "life/lives" the NWT translates it "soul(s)"!

Sharp's Rule (A response to a major accusation made by Robert H. Countess)

2010-11-28T12:04:00.000-08:00

The following is a reply to one of the major accusations made by Robert H. Countess in his book defaming the Bible translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses: "The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament - A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures [NWT]," Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1982 (2nd ed. 1987).

Sharp's Rule

On pp. 66-69 Countess examines some "God and Savior" passages and invokes "Sharp's Rule" to help "prove" that "God" and "Christ" ("the Savior") are the very same person! This rule claims that when two nouns are connected by "and" and the first noun has the article ("the") and the second does not have the article ("the"), then both nouns always refer to the same person. (In other words, "She saw the lord and master" would mean she saw a single person since "lord" has the article ("the") with it and "master" does not. Likewise, "She saw the boy and girl" would have to mean the boy and girl are both the very same person!)

Sharp's Rule is so invalid that even many trinitarian scholars disavow it! It relies on flawed conclusions based on well-known grammatical errors. Rather than cover all the evidence against this "rule" again (see SHARP and SHARP-PRIMER studies), I'll merely address Countess' statement concerning the great "dishonesty" of the NWT concerning Sharp's Rule and Titus 2:13.

He quotes from the appendix of the 1950 NWT concerning Titus 2:13. Here the NWT quotes from trinitarian J. H. Moulton's A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Moulton denies any absolute rule of grammar proving that "God" and "Christ Jesus" in Titus 2:13 are the same person. Being trinitarian, however, he points out that 5 manuscripts of the 7th century A.D. (medieval and trinitarian) do use the phrase "Jesus Christ our God and Savior." Moulton adds, however, that the complete statement used in these manuscripts is "in the name of the Lord and Master Jesus Christ our God and Savior and of our mistress the holy mother of God." The NWT points out that by the 7th century the Roman Church had not only embraced (and forced upon its members under penalty of banishment and death) the non-biblical Trinity Doctrine (325 A.D.) - see HIST study paper - but also the non-biblical doctrine that Mary is the mother of God. Just because the trinitarian "Christians" of the 7th century used the expression "Jesus Christ our God and Savior" and "Mary the mother of God" does not provide support for believing the inspired Bible writers of the 1st century (over 200 years before Nicaea and the enforced trinity doctrine) used similar expressions.

But Countess then writes emphatically (p. 68):

This investigator is utterly amazed to observe how NWT translators can discount so casually `7th century' papyri when the Hebrew translations constantly cited to support their restoration of `Jehovah' to the sacred [New Testament] text are themselves much later. (Italics are Countess' own.)

The 7th century papyri in question are not Scripture, copies of Scripture, nor even translations of Scripture. These are independent writings of extremely trinitarian individuals (whether they believed it or not, they had to write and speak trinitarian-supporting statements or be severely punished by the Roman Catholic Church - see HIST study paper). They are not NT Greek language experts showing us how they believe Titus 2:13 should be translated! It is to be expected that trinitarians of the 7th century in their own uninspired writings would call Jesus "our God and Savior"! This has absolutely no bearing on the proper translation of the inspired first century scriptures 600 years earlier!

For New Testament language experts and translators to indicate their understanding of how the inspired scriptures should be translated is worthy of note and in no way compares with the situation of the 7th century "Christians" above. Countess himself refers to Bible translators and language experts of relatively recent and modern times to support his own preference of how a scripture should be translated (e.g., Colwell: pp. 48-49,53; Metzger: p. 53; RSV, CBW, NEB, ASV : p. 80). That is exactly what the NWT has done with the translation of kurios as "Jehovah" at certain places in the NT! It has referred to a number of translations by other Bible translators and NT language experts who have translated in the same way! The fact that these translators and language experts are of relatively recent times is so much the better: knowledge of NT Greek and the original Bible manuscripts has been increasing for the last 1000 years! (Because evidence for "trinitarian" meanings found in actual manuscript copies of scripture are relatively meaningless after the 4th century A.D. when the Roman Church began enforcing its new trinity doctrine, it's `the older the better' for actual manuscripts of scripture, since it is no secret that many changes have been made in later manuscripts by copyists who often tried to provide "scriptural" evidence for their doctrinal beliefs. So, generally, "the older it is the better it is" for Bible manuscripts.)

Please examine again Countess' great indignation above in his "apples and oranges" misstatement!

Then, p. 69, he states:

"By way of criticism, the investigator [Countess himself] must take sharp exception to the entire appendix [of the NWT concerning Titus 2:13]. First, it drastically fails to meet the real problem: that the ascription of `Savior' is to both God the Father and to Jesus Christ in the same epistle - not to mention the other Pastorals. This matter is completely passed over in silence.

"Secondly, the translation, `the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus,' interpolates the preposition `of' before `our Savior.' This addition to the text implies that the happy hope and manifestation of glory will be an event in which two personages will be seen, God and Christ Jesus. But the contrary may be seen to be true, and for this reason. More than a century ago Granville Sharp formulated a rule concerning the Greek article with nouns connected by kai [`and'] .... [Applying Sharp's Rule] to Titus 2:13 ... one observes that tou [`the'] goes with `God' and `Savior.' This future expected hope and manifestation is that brought by the advent of the one person `Jesus Christ, the great God and our Savior.'"

There has never been a problem with God being called "the Savior" and others also being called "saviors." Even though God says "besides me there is no savior" (Is. 43:11), we should not believe that the Bible does not call others "savior"! It has always been clear that God is the ultimate savior but that he saves through other people and agencies. Those people and agencies may be called "savior" also.

In other words, it would be ludicrous to insist that, since Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15) are both called "savior" (the very same OT word translated "savior" at Is. 43:11), they both must be God! (Also see Obadiah 21.)

This is further illustrated at Judges 6:14 where Jehovah commands Gideon to save Israel. But later the savior, Gideon, says it is Jehovah who is saving Israel (Judges 6:37). If we insisted on using trinitarian-type evidence, then, we would insist that Jehovah and Gideon must both be God (or the same person)! Instead, an honest, objective examination would show that Gideon (like Ehud, Othniel, and others) may have been the savior of Israel, but it was ultimately Jehovah, who in the highest sense was savior of Israel through Gideon.

With this proper understanding in mind examine Jude 25. KJV using an outdated, inferior text has rendered this incorrectly, but nearly all modern translations, using better texts, translate Jude 25: "To the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord" - RSV. The word "through" explains how Jesus (like Gideon, Ehud, etc.) can be called "savior" even though Jehovah is the only ultimate savior! - Compare 1 Thess. 5:9; John 3:17; Rev. 7:10 in modern Bibles.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian) also tells us:
"Because God is the initiator [source] of salvation, both he and Christ are called soter, saviour..." - p. 78, Vol. 2, Zondervan, 1986.

So there is certainly no mystery about Jehovah being called the savior and Jesus being called the savior. This is not evidence of a 2-in-one God at all! That such an obvious and well-known fact should be "passed over in silence" by the NWT appendix writers should not be surprising. (It is explained in other literature that all JWs should be familiar with.)

Even the implication that the NWT has dishonestly added "of" to "our Savior" in Titus 2:13 is absolute devious deception!

Every New Testament language scholar (from beginning novice to expert) knows that genitive nouns (like "Savior" at Titus 2:13) literally include "of" in their meaning! Yes, the genitive soteros in Titus 2:13 literally means "of savior" whether the translator decides to include it in his translation or not! It is no different from the genitives "God" (theou), "Christ" (christou), or "lord" (kuriou) which literally mean "of God," "of Christ," and "of lord."

For example, although theou is sometimes translated "God" at Eph. 5:5, the following trinitarian Bibles render it more literally as "of God": "In the kingdom of Christ [literally "the Christ"] and of God" - KJV; also NIV; RSV; NRSV; LB; NEB; REB; MLB; NAB (both 1970 and 1991 editions); GNB (& TEV); MKJV; Webster; Weymouth; and Phillips translations. (Obviously "Sharp's Rule" doesn't work here for these respected trinitarian translations.)

And although kuriou is sometimes translated "Lord" at 2 Thess. 1:12, the following trinitarian Bibles render it literally as "of Lord": "tender mercy of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" - Living Bible; also MLB; GNB; NAB (1970 ed.); Douay Version; Darby; Webster; and Weymouth translations; and Barclay's Daily Study Bible. (Obviously "Sharp's Rule" also doesn't work here for these respected trinitarian translators.)

And although christou is sometimes translated "Christ" at 1 Tim 5:21, the following trinitarian Bibles render it literally as "of Christ": "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus" - Revised Standard Version; also NRSV; NASB; MLB; GNB (& TEV); and Weymouth's translation. (Again "Sharp's Rule" doesn't work here for these respected trinitarian translators, either.)

And, again, at 2 Tim. 4:1 christou may be translated "Christ" in a few trinitarian Bibles, but the following trinitarian Bibles render it literally as "of Christ" - RSV; NIV; NASB; GNB; TEV; MLB; NRSV; NAB (1970 and 1991); Weymouth; and Phillips translations. ("Sharp's Rule" certainly doesn't work here for most trinitarian translators, either.)

So when we see the genitive soteros [`savior'] in the NT manuscripts, even though it literally means "of savior," we may honestly translate it as either "of savior" or "savior"! That is why even these trinitarian Bibles have translated soteros at Titus 2:13 as: "we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ" - New American Bible (1991 ed.); "we await our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus" - NAB (1970); "we hope and wait for the glorious denouement of the great God and of Jesus Christ our savior" - Phillips.

When Countess implies that the NWT has dishonestly added "of" at Titus 2:13, he is hypocritically taking advantage of the trust of the average member of Christendom who has little or no knowledge of NT Greek grammar. Sharp's Rule is completely untrustworthy (at best) and the NWT rendering of Titus 2:13 (and other "Sharp's constructions") is perfectly honest.

Also see:
SHARP'S RULE - Pt 1 (Examining the Trinity)

SHARP'S Rule - Pt 2 (Endnotes) (Examining the Trinity)

'Sharp's Rule' Primer (Examining the Trinity)

NWT - Criticism by Zondervan's So Many Versions? - Sharp's Rule (DNWT)

Trinitarian Apologetics: A Case Study Involving Rob Bowman and Granville Sharp (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

2 Peter 1:1 (and Titus 2:13) "Sharp's Rule"

2010-11-28T11:54:00.000-08:00

2 PETER 1:1 (and Titus 2:13) - These two scriptures are frequently translated (not surprisingly) in a trinitarian manner in trinitarian Bibles. Grammatically they could be translated in two (at least) different ways: trinitarian or non-trinitarian. If a translator has a trinitarian bias, he will, understandably, render them to show a trinitarian understanding. So it is highly significant that the following trinitarian scholars have not chosen to so interpret them:

- The Greek Testament, Henry Alford, p. 421, Vol. 3. (Titus 2:13)

- Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, pp. 136, 137, Vol. 1, 1965. (2 Peter 1:1)

- The Bible, a New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt. (Titus 2:13)

In an attempt to prove the Trinity Doctrine, trinitarian Granville Sharp made up a rule in 1798. It is often called "Sharp's Rule" by trinitarians. It says, in effect, that when in the original Greek two or more words (nouns) are joined by the word "and" they all refer to the same person if the word "the" (the article) comes before the first noun and not before the other noun(s).

For example, if we saw "the king and master of the slave" in the Greek text of the Bible, it would always mean, according to Sharp, that only one person was being called both "king" and "master."

Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction (sometimes called a "Sharp's construction") was used with "God" and "Christ" in 5 places in the NT. If he could convince others that his "rule" was true, then they would think there was finally (after 1400 years of a "trinity" tradition) some actual scriptural, grammatical proof that God and Jesus are the same "person"!

The 5 "proofs" of Jesus' Godhood according to Sharp himself are (in the literal wording of the original New Testament manuscripts):

(a) Titus 2:13: "of the great God and savior of us Christ Jesus" (Bowman's choice)

(b) 2 Pet. 1:1: "righteousness of the God of us and savior Christ Jesus" (Bowman's choice)

(c) 2 Thess. 1:12: "the grace of the God of us and Lord Jesus Christ"

(d) 1 Tim. 5:21: "in sight of the God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels"

(e) Eph. 5:5: "...in the kingdom of the Christ and God"

Since the first noun ("God" in the first four scriptures) has the article ("the") with it and the following noun ("savior" in the first two scriptures) does not have the article ("the"), then (according to Sharp) God and Christ (the savior, etc.) are the same person!

There are a number of reasons why Sharp's Rule, as applied to these 5 "proofs," is invalid, but we will examine a few briefly (See the SHARP study for more details).

One important strike against it is the fact that so many respected trinitarian NT grammar experts and translators have rejected it as a valid rule - e.g., see G. B. Winer; J. H. Moulton; C. F. D. Moule; Dr. James Moffatt (see Titus 2:13; and 1 Tim. 5:21); Dr. William Barclay (see 2 Thess. 1:12).

For example, examine the following trinitarian Bible's renderings of these "Sharp's Constructions":

2 Thess. 1:12 - KJV; KJIIV; NASB; NAB (1970); MLB; LB; GNB; RSV; NRSV; NIV.

Eph 5:5 - KJV; NKJV; KJIIV; RSV; NRSV; LB; MLB; NIV; NEB; REB; GNB; TEV; NAB.

2 Tim. 4:1 - most trinitarian Bibles.

1 Tim 6:13 - all trinitarian Bibles.

These many respected Bibles, translated by expert trinitarian New Testament scholars, clearly disregard Sharp's "Rule" at these (and other) places and show two persons being spoken of!

Notice Eph. 5:5, for example. Most trinitarian Bibles translate this example of Sharp's Construction:

"in the kingdom of Christ and of God" - NEB; REB; NRSV; RSV; NAB; KJV; MLB; LB; NIV; GNB; TEV; The Amplified Bible; and Phillips. This is not the way it would be translated to show that the two descriptions were of the same person! (At the very least it would be rendered more literally as "the kingdom of the Christ and God.") Instead it clearly shows two persons!

Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: "before (in the sight or presence of) God ... and before Christ Jesus...." Although Sharp's Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Most trinitarian grammar experts clearly do not believe Sharp's Rule is a valid absolute rule!

Context alone is often enough to show that the trinitarian rendering is the least likely of the grammatically possible renderings. For example, the most popular of `Sharp's constructions' among trinitarians is 2 Peter 1:1. The `Sharp's construction' here is immediately followed by another `Sharp's construction' in verse 2. It is almost never translated in a trinitarian fashion in any trinitarian Bible. Instead, it is usually rendered like this: "the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord" - AT (Goodspeed).

According to Sharp's Rule, however, this should be rendered "according to the knowledge of the God and Jesus our Lord" and interpreted as God and Jesus being the same person. Obviously, context shows they are not the same person here, or more trinitarians would have so translated it! Therefore, with the context of 2 Pet. 1:2, it is unlikely that 2 Pet. 1:1 immediately before it should be given an entirely different interpretation.

Of the many reasons invalidating Sharp's Rule grammatically (see SHARP study paper) there are at least two of extreme importance each of which is conclusive by itself.

(1) Prepositional Constructions (with phrases containing prepositions: "of God;" "in the Lord;" "God of...;" etc.) are known by all NT grammarians to cause uncertainty of article usage. That is, if a prepositional phrase (including genitives) is attached to a word, that word may sometimes have the article ("the") and sometimes not have it -- without changing the intended meaning! (See A. T. Robertson, pp. 780, 790, 791; C. F. D. Moule, p. 117; J. H. Moulton, pp. 175, 179-180; et al.)
This means that the NT writers sometimes wrote, for example, "The God of me" (with article) and "_God of me" (without article) with exactly the same intended meaning. The definite article ("the") was ambiguous in such cases (see the DEF study paper).

Therefore any grammatical rules which depend on the presence or absence of the article in the NT Greek must not use as examples those scriptures which use a prepositional construction attached to a word (noun) in question if they are to be used honestly and properly.

But if you examine the 5 trinitarian "proofs" above, you will see that they all use such prepositional constructions: "Of us" in (a) Titus 2:13 and (b) 2 Peter 1:1 is a "prepositional" genitive, and even "savior" itself is a genitive in both scriptures and literally means "of savior;" "Lord" in (c) 2 Thess. 1:12 is a genitive and literally means "of Lord" (as rendered in the Modern Language Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; Douay Version; New American Bible [1970 ed.]; and Barclay's Daily Study Bible); "Christ" in (d)1 Tim. 5:21 is a genitive and literally means "of Christ" (as in The Good News Bible [& TEV]; New American Standard Bible; Modern Language Bible; Revised Standard Version; and New Revised Standard Version); and "God" in (e) Eph 5:5 Is a genitive and literally means "of God" (as in the King James Version; Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; Living Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; Modern Language Bible; New American Bible (1970 & 1991); Douay Version; New International Version; Good News Bible; and Phillips translation).

Therefore all 5 Sharp's "proofs" are invalid on the basis of prepositional constructions alone!

(2) New Testament scholars, including noted trinitarian NT grammar experts, point out that the use of proper names ("John," "Moses," "Jesus," etc.) also causes uncertain article usage in NT Greek. (A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 791, and Word Pictures, p. 46, Vol. IV [includes "Lord"]; C. F. D. Moule, p. 115 [includes "Lord"]; J. H. Moulton [Turner], Vol. 3, pp. 165-167; et. al.)

So not only did the NT Bible writers sometimes use the article and sometimes not use the article with the very same intended meaning with the very same proper name (e.g. "the James" and "James"), but even when the proper name is used as an appositive it also causes irregular article usage with the other associated nouns. - Robertson, pp. 760, 791.

For example, when "Jesus" and "Christ" are in apposition to each other ("Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus"), they are nearly always (96% of the time - see the SHARP study paper) written without the definite article in the writings of Paul regardless of "Sharp's rule" or any other grammatical/syntactical consideration!

If we examine the first 4 of the 5 "proofs" above, we see that the proper name "Jesus" is used as an appositive with the word in question in each case! In other words, "Christ Jesus" is the appositive for "savior" in Titus 2:13. This means sometimes "savior" will have "the" with it in such a situation and sometimes it won't (with no change in meaning). "Jesus Christ" is the appositive for "savior" in 2 Peter 1:1 and article usage (or non-usage) with "savior" in such circumstances is virtually meaningless. "Jesus Christ" is in apposition to (an appositive for) "Lord" in 2 Thess. 1:12. And "Jesus" is in apposition to "Christ" in 1 Tim. 5:21. These examples, therefore, are completely invalid as evidence for Jesus being God even if there were actually some validity to Sharp's "Rule" with proper examples!

And the 5th example, Eph. 5:5, is incredibly poor in context alone. Even extreme trinitarian A. T. Robertson has to admit that the "evidence" of Eph. 5:5 is doubtful - Word Pictures, Vol. 14, pp. 46 and 543. No objective person could accept it alone as real evidence of Jesus' Godhood!

Some PREPOSITIONAL examples found in NT Greek:

"The God of Abraham and _God of Isaac and _God of Jacob" - Luke 20:37.

"The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" - Matt. 22:32.

"James, _slave of God and _Lord Jesus Christ" - James 1:1

"By command of _God savior of us and _Christ Jesus" - 1 Tim. 1:1.

"I am the root and the offspring of David" - Rev. 22:16.

Some PROPER NAME examples found in NT Greek:

"having seen _Peter and _John" (no articles) - Acts 3:3.

"holding fast ... the Peter and the John" (both articles) - Acts 3:11.

"beholding the outspokenness of the Peter and _John" (Sharp's) - Acts 4:13.

"But the Peter and _John" (Sharp's construction) - Acts 4:19.

So we see the Bible writer who has been acknowledged as the most proficient in NT Greek (Luke) showing the great ambiguity of article usage with proper names. If we do not exclude proper names as valid examples, we would have to agree that either Luke believed Peter and John were the same person or that he was completely unaware of Sharp's Rule (or any first century equivalent)!

Although we can find such constructions as "the lord and master of the slave" where the first noun (with the definite article, `the') is the same person as the second noun (without the definite article), there is no grammatical reason that this must always be so. Such constructions as "the boy and girl" and "the President and Vice President" (found in Amendment XX [as ratified in 1933] of the Constitution of the United States of America), which refer to more than one individual, are just as grammatically correct in both English and NT Greek.

There is no reason, grammatical or contextual, that 2 Pet. 1:1 and Titus 2:13 should be rendered as many trinitarian Bibles prefer it. Even many trinitarian scholars admit this. So just how, as Bowman claims, has the NWT "systematically abused the divine names or titles ... in its handling of texts in which Jesus is called God" by translating in a completely honest manner the most probable meaning for these two scriptures?

It's one thing to prefer a certain translation of a passage. It's entirely another thing to insist that others who prefer a grammatically and contextually accurate different rendering are being dishonest!

Also see:
SHARP'S RULE - Pt 1 (Examining the Trinity)

SHARP'S Rule - Pt 2 (Endnotes) (Examining the Trinity)

'Sharp's Rule' Primer (Examining the Trinity)

Sharp's Rule (A response to a major accusation made by Robert H. Countess) (DNWT)

Trinitarian Apologetics: A Case Study Involving Rob Bowman and Granville Sharp (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

1 Peter 3:15 (Refuting Countess' Accusations Against the NWT)

2010-11-28T11:36:00.001-08:00

1 Peter 2:3 (Refuting Countess' Accusations Against the NWT)

2010-11-28T11:32:00.000-08:00

The following is a reply to a major accusation made by Robert H. Countess in his book defaming the Bible translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses: "The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament - A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures [NWT]," Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1982 (2nd ed. 1987).

Countess attacks the NWT's usage of "Jehovah" in many places in the New Testament (NT). But more important to him is the NWT's "dishonest" non-usage of "Jehovah" in certain places in the NT! His three primary targets (1 Pet. 2:3 [pp. 34-35]; 1 Pet. 3:15a [pp. 36-37]; and Zech. 12:10/John 19:37 [pp. 37-38]) were chosen by him simply because the NWT translates these three scriptures in a way that denies some standard trinitarian "proofs" that Jesus is Jehovah. As he admits on p. 33, this is "The Real Issue: The Identification of Jesus with Jehovah"!

1 Peter 2:3

(:3) “For you have tasted the kindness of the Lord. (:4) Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious” - 1 Peter 2:3, 4, RSV.

"Taste and see that the Lord is good" - Ps. 34:8 (33:8), The Septuagint, Zondervan Publ., 1980 ed.

The question is not so much "was the name `Jehovah' (rather than "Lord") used at Ps. 34:8 in the original Septuagint (LXX)?" (It probably was.) The real question is: "Was Peter actually quoting Ps. 34:8 and applying `Jehovah' in it directly to Jesus?" Mr. Countess contends that he was. For evidence he points to the context: 1 Pet. 2:4 - "As you come to him, the living Stone - rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him" - NIV. [But analyze this statement, especially the contrast between "him" and "God."] And so he claims the NWT was very dishonest in not using "Jehovah" in place of "the Lord" at 1 Pet. 2:3 since it claims to use "Jehovah" in the NT when the inspired NT writer is actually quoting an OT text which originally used "Jehovah" (e.g., Jn 1:23; Acts 2:34; Acts 4:25, 26).

So, (1) if "him" in 1 Pet. 2:4 were intended to refer back to "the Lord" in 1 Pet. 2:3, and (2) if 1 Pet. 2:3 were intended to quote (or directly refer to) Ps. 34:8 which used `Jehovah,' then Mr. Countess' evidence would appear valid and significant and the NWT would appear to be wrong in not using "Jehovah" at 1 Peter 2:3 (and Jesus would appear to be Jehovah).

However, when even many respected trinitarian scholars indicate otherwise, we must strongly question the validity of such `evidence'!

For example, there is a complete break (including double space and new subheading titles) between 1 Pet. 2:3 and 1 Pet. 2:4 in some editions of certain respected, highly trinitarian Bibles which use subdivisions and subheadings. (See, for example, those editions of NIV, RSV, and NASB which use subheadings. Also see the NIVSB.) This indicates, of course, that even trinitarian scholars recognize that there is not necessarily a connection between the "him" in the new section (which begins with 1 Pet. 2:4) and the "Lord" in the preceding section (which ends with 1 Pet. 2:3). In other words, even if 1 Pet. 2:3 were intended by Peter to be referring to Jehovah, 1 Pet. 2:4 would not also have to do likewise.

Even noted trinitarian scholar F. J. A Hort (who apparently does refer 1 Pet. 2:3 to Ps. 34:8) does not accept the connection of "him" in 1 Pet. 2:4 with the "Lord" of 1 Pet. 2:3 as Mr. Countess wishes:

"In the Psalm [34:8] ó kurios stands for Jehovah, as it very often does, the LXX inserting and omitting the article with kurios on no apparent principal. On the other hand the next verse [1 Pet. 2:4] shews St Peter to have used ó kurios in its commonest though not universal N.T. sense, of Christ. It would be rash however to conclude that he meant to identify Jehovah with Christ. No such identification can be clearly made out in the N.T. St Peter is not here making a formal quotation, but merely borrowing O.T. language, and applying it in his own manner." - from p. 104, The First Epistle of Peter as quoted in the footnote for 1 Pet. 2:3 in the NWT Reference Bible, 1984.

There are a number of respected trinitarian translators who have indicated that 1 Peter 2:3 does not refer to Ps 34:8 nor intend that "Jehovah" was meant by Peter to be understood there. (Also the UBS' NT text, 3rd ed., 1975, which uses bold type to indicate a quote from the OT, does not use bold type for 1 Pet. 2:3.)

For example, my KJV reference Bible by Collins Press, 1955, does not even refer 1 Pet. 2:3 to Ps. 34:8 but only to Heb. 6:5. (Such reference listings are not limited to identifying quotations but often merely identify verses with similar terms or concepts. Even the 1951 NWT itself referred 1 Pet. 2:3 to Ps. 34:8 because of a similarity of terms, but obviously did not consider it a quote of that scripture.) This is a significant revelation in this trinitarian-published Bible which lists other clearer OT references and quotes such as: Is. 40:8 (for 1 Pet. 1:25); Is. 66:21 (for 1 Pet. 2:5); Is. 8:14 (1 Pet. 2:8); Deut. 10:15 and Ex. 19:5, 6 (1 Pet. 2:9); etc. Clearly the editors of this trinitarian publication don't believe Peter was necessarily referring to the "Jehovah" of Ps. 34:8 let alone actually quoting from it. So why does Mr. Countess accuse the non-trinitarian translators of the NWT of being so dishonest for believing the very same thing?

The trinitarian NKJV; RSV; NRSV; NASB; NIV; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); REB; JB; NJB; MLB; and translations by James Moffatt; and William F. Beck (Lutheran) use quotation marks (italic letters in NKJV, NJB, JB, Moffatt, and Beck; and all capital letters in NASB) in the NT to show what their trinitarian translators and editors considered to be a quote from the OT.

For example, the last part of 1 Pet. 5:5 in the NKJV; RSV; NRSV; NIV; Moffatt; NASB; JB; NJB; REB; MLB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); and Beck is set off by quotation marks (italics in NKJV, Moffatt, JB; NJB; and Beck; all capitals in NASB) to show that their trinitarian translators and editors considered it to be a quote of Prov. 3:34, Septuagint. (In spite of the different wording in the Septuagint: `Lord' [or `Jehovah'] instead of `God' and didosi instead of didosin.) So if 1 Pet. 5:5 had used "Lord" and Prov. 3:34 had used "Jehovah," then the NWT would have translated "Jehovah" in place of "Lord" at 1 Pet. 5:5. And it might have properly been considered dishonest for not doing so.

But it is not always so clear whether a statement by a NT writer is actually a quote from the OT or not! For example, notice how many of these trinitarian translations agree that 1 Pet. 3:14 ends with a quote from Is. 8:12: NKJV; NIV; NASB; JB; NJB; Beck; NAB (1970); and Moffatt. Yes, RSV; NRSV; NAB (1991); REB; and MLB do not believe Peter was quoting from the OT at 1 Pet. 3:14! So there is strong disagreement here even among respected trinitarian scholars. And surely no honest Bible scholar would blame the NWT for also not considering it to be a quote from Is. 8:12 or not changing "Lord" to "Jehovah" (if "Lord" had actually appeared there) at that scripture.

But more important, how did these same trinitarian scholars treat the verse in question (1 Pet. 2:3) which Countess insists is a quote from the OT? Well, NKJV; RSV; NRSV; REB; NASB; NIV; NAB (1970); Moffatt; NAB (1991); and MLB do not indicate that 1 Pet. 2:3 is a quote from the OT!

Only JB; NJB; and Beck indicate the belief that Peter was quoting from the OT in this scripture! If so many trinitarian scholars do not believe that Peter was quoting "Lord" (or "Jehovah") from the OT, how is it so "dishonest" for the scholars who translated the NWT to do the same?

Let's also consider the Hebrew translations of the NT by highly trinitarian scholars (noted Lutheran scholar Franz Delitzsch's Hebrew New Testament, The Trinitarian Bible Society, London, 1981, and the trinitarian translators and publishers of the United Bible Societies' Hebrew New Testament, 1983). At 1 Peter 1:25 both translations have rendered the "Lord" (kurios) of the NT Greek text into the Hebrew "Jehovah" (Yhwh in Hebrew), not "Lord" (adon)!

(All the above trinitarian Bibles - NKJV; RSV; NIV; NASB, etc. - agree that 1 Pet. 1:25 truly is a quote from Is. 40:8 where "Jehovah" was used in the original manuscripts. The NKJV, which actually renders "Jehovah" from OT quotes in the NT as "LORD," not "Lord," renders this as "But the word of the LORD endures forever." )

But at the verse in question, 1 Pet. 2:3, both Hebrew New Testaments have rendered the "Lord" of NT Greek as adon ("Lord") rather than the name of God, Yhwh! Clearly, these highly respected trinitarian scholars did not believe 1 Pet. 2:3 was a quote from the OT (as they did for 1 Pet. 1:25) nor that "Jehovah" was intended there!

[2 Thess. 1:9 is also put in this category by Jason DeBuhn in his generally excellent Truth in Translation, p. 175, University Press of America, 2003.] *

* BeDuhn claims that 2 Thess 1:9 is a quote from Isaiah 2:21.

2 Thess 1:9 - "These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the lord and from the glory of his strength" – NWT.

2 Thess. 1:9 - ... apo proswpou tou kuriou kai apo thV doxhV thV iscuoV autou

Is. 2:21 - ….Before the terror of the LORD and the splendor of His majesty, When He arises to make the earth tremble. – NASB.

Is. 2:21 - … apo proswpou tou fobou kuriou kai apo thV dochV thV iscuoV autou .... Septuagint.

There are a number of respected trinitarian translators who have indicated that 2 Thess 1:9 does not quote from Is. 2:21 nor intend that "Jehovah" was meant by Paul to be understood there. (Also the UBS' NT text, 3rd ed., 1975, which uses bold type to indicate a quote from the OT, does not use bold type for 2 Thess 1:9.)

2 Thess 1:9 is not indicated as a quote from the OT in NASB; NRSV; RSV; ASV; NAB (`70); NAB (`91); MLB; NIV; NKJV; AT (Smith – Goodspeed); etc.

Let's also consider the Hebrew translations of the NT by highly trinitarian scholars (noted Lutheran scholar Franz Delitzsch's Hebrew New Testament, The Trinitarian Bible Society, London, 1981, and the trinitarian translators and publishers of the United Bible Societies' Hebrew New Testament, 1983). At 1 Pet. 1:25 both translations have rendered the "Lord" (kurios) of the NT Greek text into the Hebrew "Jehovah" (Yhwh in Hebrew), not "Lord" (adon)!

(All the above trinitarian Bibles - NKJV; RSV; NIV; NASB, etc. - agree that 1 Pet. 1:25, for example, truly is a quote from Is. 40:8 where "Jehovah" was used in the original manuscripts. The NKJV, which actually renders "Jehovah" from OT quotes in the NT as "LORD," not "Lord," renders this as "But the word of the LORD endures forever.'" And the NWT renders it as "…. but the saying of Jehovah endures forever.'")

But at the verse in question, 2 Thess 1:9, both Hebrew New Testaments have rendered the "Lord" of NT Greek as ha adon ("the Lord") rather than the name of God, Yhwh! Clearly, these highly respected trinitarian scholars did not believe 2 Thess 1:9 was a quote from the OT (as they did for 1 Pet. 1:25) nor that "Jehovah" was intended there!

Furthermore, the NKJV, which uses LORD when quoting portions of the OT which include God's name, has at 2 Thess 1:9, "…. From the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power." And the NWT also has "from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength."

Also see:
1 Peter 2:3 ("Lord") (INDNWT)

Adding "Other" (Col. 1:16-20; Acts 10:36; Rom. 8:32; Phil. 2:9)

2010-11-28T11:19:00.000-08:00

The following examines another one of Bowman's attacks on the NWT:

Adding Other

[After the usual trinitarian criticism of the NWT's rendering of Col. 1:16-20 (with `[other]' added) - see the NWT study paper, `Martin's Criticism' - he continues:]

...the NWT does this same thing in several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Rom.
8:32; Phil. 2:9). In Romans 8:32, the word other is not even placed in brackets, contrary to the work's stated practice. - p. 66.

(1) At Acts 10:36, which literally says, "He sent the word to the sons of Israel declaring good news of peace through Jesus Christ; this [one] is lord of all," we see that a number of respected trinitarian scholars interpret this as meaning "Jesus is lord of all [but not of the Father]." In other words "Jesus is lord of all others."

This is shown in the NIVSB by the footnote which says: "Lord of all. Lord of both Jew and Gentile." This interpretation by these respected trinitarian scholars clearly shows that Jesus is being called the Lord of all humans, not Lord of God himself (and not even necessarily Lord of the angels although other scriptures show that he has this lordship also) - - but Lord of all others!

The very trinitarian TEV by the American Bible Society renders Acts 10:36-
"... through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all men." - third edition, 1971.

Again it is clear what these trinitarian translators believe this scripture is saying: Jesus is the Lord (not of God, nor even the angels as far as this scripture reveals), but of men. Since it is translated as excluding God himself by these trinitarian scholars, it is just as acceptable to render it as "Lord of all [others]" which would also exclude God himself, (but could include all others, including the angels).

Also the popular translation by trinitarian J. B. Phillips translates this as -
"... through Jesus Christ - he is the Lord of us all." - 1960.

This also includes all men, but excludes God (and even his angels, apparently). So we find once again that the NWT should certainly not be condemned for also excluding God (alone) here by rendering Acts 10:36 as "Lord of all [others]."

The very trinitarian Living Bible (LB) renders this verse -
"through Jesus the Messiah, who is lord of all creation." - Tyndale House Publ., 1971.

This is a paraphrase Bible, but nevertheless it shows what these trinitarian translators and scholars believe was actually intended by the original wording. And that is that God was excluded from the category of those over whom Jesus is Lord! (Although angels would also be included with this wording.) The meaning, therefore, is essentially the same as the NWT's!

And, finally, how does Bowman-praised Dr. Goodspeed render it?

"... through Jesus Christ. He is Lord of us all." - AT, University of Chicago Press, 1975 ed.

(2) At Rom. 8:32 we also find 'other' or its equivalent (e.g., else) added in NRSV; REB; NAB (`91); CBW; and LB. (And there are no italics or brackets in these respected trinitarian translations! - The Amplified Bible adds 'other' with brackets, however.)

(3) And at Phil. 2:9 in Dr. Goodspeed's AT, we find the word `others' (without italics or brackets) has been honestly added to the text: "given him the name above all others" (Also, JB; NJB; NAB [`70]; CBW; GNB; TEV; CEV; LB; ETRV; NLV; GodsWord; ISV NT; Weymouth; and Beck [NT].)

How is it, then, that Dr. Goodspeed is praised by Bowman (and others) as "without question one of America's finest Greek scholars" while the NWT is to be condemned for its translation which is essentially the same as Dr. Goodspeed's (and other trinitarian translators and scholars)??

Also see:
Colossians 1:15 in the New World Translation (INDNWT)

Acts 10:36 'others' (INDNWT)
Does the New World Translation Add Words to Colossians 1:16, 17? (Bible Translation and Study)

Why does the New World Translation use the word "other" at Col. 1:16? (SFBT)

NWT - "Other" at Col. 1:16 (DNWT)

ROM. 9:5 - " ... Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." - KJV

2010-11-25T10:44:00.000-08:00

(Bowman's Attacks on the NWT (the New World Translation, the Bible translation by Jehovah's Witnesses) in his Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses)

ROM. 9:5 - " ... Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." - KJV.

Bowman not only insists that the KJV has the only proper translation of this verse and that it proves that Jesus is definitely called God, but that the NWT "systematically abused the divine ... titles" by mistranslating it "so that Jesus is not called God at all"! - p. 71.

This is the scripture that A Catholic Dictionary calls "the strongest statement of Christ's divinity in [the writings of] St. Paul, and, indeed, in the N[ew] T[estament]."

The Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic) renders it, like the equally trinitarian KJV, in such a way as to make Christ appear to be God: "Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen."

And the very trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, 1985, in a note for Ro. 9:5, calls it: "One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT, assuming the accuracy of the translation (see NIV text note)."

However, the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is forced to acknowledge that even IF such a trinitarian rendering of the Greek were accurate,

"Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as being of divine nature [see the study paper on `The Definite John 1:1' (DEF)], for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a DOXOLOGY [praise] DIRECTED TO God." - Vol. 2, p. 80, Zondervan, 1986.

Even the trinitarian United Bible Societies makes the same admission:

"In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ's greatness by calling him `God blessed for ever'." And, "Nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ho christos [`the Christ'] as theos [`God' or `god']." - p. 522, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.

The UBS has therefore punctuated their NT Greek text in such a way as to show the separateness of Christ and God at Ro. 9:5.

And A Catholic Dictionary admits the possibility that the scripture in question is really a doxology directed to God and not to Jesus: "There is no reason in grammar or in the context which forbids us to translate `God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.'" And this statement is from the very same trinitarian reference work that calls Ro. 9:5 "the strongest statement of Christ's divinity" in the entire New Testament!! If this is the "strongest" such statement, where does that put the rest of the trinity "proof"?

Illustrating the high probability that the last part of Romans 9:5 is directed as a doxology to the Father, not to Jesus, are these translations of Ro. 9:5 found in trinitarian Bibles where the statement in question is a separate thought, a separate sentence which is not directed to Jesus:

The New American Bible (NAB), 1970 ed. - "Blessed forever be God who is over all! Amen."

The New American Bible (NAB), 1991 ed. - "God who is over all be blessed forever, Amen."

The New English Bible (NEB) - "May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!"

Revised English Bible (REB) - "May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!"

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) - "God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen."

- See p. 165, So Many Versions? (SMV), Zondervan, 1983.

New Life Version (NLV) - "May God be honored and thanked forever."

Today's English Version (TEV) - "May God, who rules over all, be praised forever! Amen."

The Bible, A New Translation, (Mo) by Dr. James Moffatt - "(Blessed for evermore be the
God who is over all! Amen.)"

Easy-to-Read Version (ETRV) - "May God, who rules over all things, be praised forever"(f.n.)

An American Translation (AT) - " - God who is over all be blessed for ever!"

Yes, even Dr. Goodspeed, the trinitarian scholar praised by Bowman himself, translates Ro. 9:5 in a non-trinitarian fashion in his An American Translation!

Not only can Ro. 9:5 be interpreted as having two different statements about two different subjects (1. Jesus came to earth as an Israelite, and, 2. Bless God who is over all.), but that is almost certainly the meaning intended by Paul (compare Ro. 15:5, 6; Ro. 16:27; 2 Cor. 1:3; Gal. 1:3-5; Eph. 1:3; 1 Tim. 1:16, 17).

Some trinitarians have, instead, run these two separate statements together in such a way as to give the interpretation that they both refer to the same subject: Jesus.

But notice how the highly respected trinitarian Bible, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) renders this verse:

[An Israelite] "according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen."

And just how is it that the Bowman-praised trinitarian translator Dr. Goodspeed (in basic agreement with many other trinitarian translators and respected scholars) renders Ro. 9:5 as:

"from them [Israelites] physically Christ came - God who is over all be blessed forever! Amen"

while "the NWT has systematically abused the divine names or titles"* (according to Bowman, p. 71) by rendering Ro. 9:5 as:

"from whom the Christ [sprang] according to the flesh: God, who is over all, [be] blessed
forever. Amen."

There is NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE!

Ro. 9:5 is simply not necessarily a trinitarian statement! And Bowman is being incredibly hypocritical and dishonest by accusing the NWT of purposely distorting and mistranslating this scripture and abusing the divine titles!
-------------------------------------------------

Note

* This is an amazing statement from one who truly endorses "the systematic abuse of the divine name." Although he admits that YHWH is the personal name of God and may be properly pronounced in English as `Yahweh' or `Jehovah,' he, nevertheless, endorses the substitution of that name in most trinitarian Bibles as "LORD." - pp. 112, 118.

"Jehovah denotes specifically the one true God, whose people the Jews were, and who made them the guardians of his truth. .... The substitution of the word Lord is most unhappy, for it in no way represents the meaning of the sacred name." - p. 220, Smith's Bible Dictionary, Hendrickson Publ.

"The change ... which substitutes `Jehovah' for `LORD' and `GOD' (printed in small capitals) - is one which will be unwelcome to many, because of the frequency and familiarity of the terms displaced. But the American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament.... This personal name ['Jehovah'], with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim." - Preface, p. iv, American Standard Version, Thomas Nelson and Sons.

"Jehovah, the special and significant name (not merely an appellative title such as Lord) by which God revealed himself to the ancient Hebrews" - p. 330, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

"YHWH, the personal name of God, is always translated `Yahweh' [in this publication], against the practice of the NIV in rendering it as `LORD.' On the one hand, this prevents confusion of this name with the title [`my-Lord'], for the idea of lordship is not an integral element of the name. On the other hand, perhaps the use of Yahweh in this work will encourage the reader to use the personal name of God in prayer and praise, as is intended by the most common imperative in the Scriptures, [`Hallelujah' - `praise Jehovah' (see p. 276, Today's Dictionary of the Bible)]" - pp. xxvii-xxviii, The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, Vol. 1, Zondervan, 1979.

"Here is why we did not [use `Jehovah' in the NIV]: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. .... We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it - that is how many have bought it to date [1979] - and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh.... It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you." - Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV (see Tribute in foreword of the NIV Study Bible, 1985.)

"5. `Jehovah' - The name most distinctive of God as the God of Israel is Jehovah.... The meaning may with some confidence be inferred ... to be that of the simple fut[ure], yahweh, `he will be.' It does not express causation, nor existence in a metaphysical sense, but the covenant promise of the Divine presence, both at the immediate time and in the Messianic age of the future.... It is the personal name of God.... Characteristic of the OT is its insistence on the possible knowledge of God as a person; and Jehovah is His name as a person. It is illogical, certainly, that the later Hebrews should have shrunk from its pronunciation, in view of the appropriateness of the name and of the OT insistence on the personality of God, who as a person has this name. [ASV] quite correctly adopts the transliteration `Jehovah' to emphasize its significance and purpose as a personal name of God revealed." - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 1266, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984.

"Jehovah" was used and praised and revered in the OT to an overwhelming degree. It was reverently used nearly 7000 times, much more than any other name in the entire Bible or any title used for God ("God," "Lord," etc.). It was declared to be of essential importance (not in a magical, superstitious sense, but as an essential ingredient in the knowledge of the only true God and in proper worship of him):

Ex. 3:15 - "Yahweh, ... this is my name for all time, and thus I am to be invoked for all generations to come." - NJB.

"Jehovah, .... This is My name FOREVER and by this I am to be remembered through all generations." - MLB.

"Jehovah ... This is my ETERNAL name, to be used throughout all generations." - LB.

This scripture alone shows us that His name is essential! Those who worship him, the witnesses of Jehovah, are commanded to know and use it. There are many other Scriptures, however. A few of them are:

1 Chron. 16:8 - "O give thanks unto Jehovah, call upon his name; Make known his doings among the peoples." - ASV.

"Give thanks to Yahweh, call his name aloud, proclaim his deeds to the peoples [`among the nations' - NAB (1991); MLB; GNB; `world' - LB]." - NJB.

"... call upon him BY his name" - The Septuagint, Zondervan Publ., 1970.

Is. 12:4 - "And in that day shall ye say, Give thanks unto Jehovah, call upon his name, declare his doings among the peoples, make mention that his name is exalted." - ASV.

"And, that day, you will say, `Praise Yahweh, invoke his name. Proclaim his deeds to the people [`nations,' RSV, NRSV, MLB, NAB (1991), GNB; `world', LB], declare his name sublime.'" - NJB.

"call aloud upon his name" [Boate to onoma autou, literally: "call aloud his name"] - The Septuagint, Zondervan Publ., 1970.

Zeph. 3:9 - "For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of Jehovah, to serve him with one consent." - ASV.

"Yes, then [the last days] I shall purge the lips of the peoples, so that all may invoke the name of Yahweh." - NJB.

Joel 2:26, 32 - "And ye ... shall praise the name of Jehovah your God .... And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered." - ASV.

"You WILL ... praise the name of Yahweh your God .... All who call on [`invoke' - REB] the name of Yahweh will be saved" - NJB.

Here, like knowing God (Jn 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:8, 9), calling on (or invoking) Jehovah's name is an essential part of the road that leads to life.

Since it is a requirement to call upon, or invoke the name Jehovah, the knowledge and use of that name IS essential (as made known in the OT at least)! And, like knowing God, "calling upon his name, Jehovah" includes much more than merely pronouncing his name aloud in prayer. But, nevertheless, it does include the knowledge and use of his personal name, Jehovah (or Yahweh).

For example, Elijah, in his famous demonstration of who the only true God is, told the priests of Baal, "Call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of Jehovah: and the God that answers by fire, let him be God." So how did the priests of Baal call on the name of their god? "And they ... called on the name of Baal ... saying `O Baal, hear us.'" And how did Elijah call on the name of Jehovah? "O Jehovah .... Hear me, O Jehovah, hear me, that this people may know that thou, Jehovah, art God.... And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said [aloud, uncoded, in plain language], `Jehovah, he is God'" - ASV, 1 Ki.18:24, 26, 36-39. - Obviously, calling on (or invoking) the name of Jehovah includes the reverent use of that only personal name of the true God!

Many other scriptures throughout the OT declare the extreme importance (to God and us) of our knowing and declaring and calling upon the name Jehovah:

Jer. 16:19, 21 - "O Jehovah ... unto thee shall the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Our fathers have inherited nought but lies ... and they will know that my name is JEHOVAH." - ASV.

Zech. 13:9 - "They shall call upon my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people; and they shall say [aloud, uncoded, in plain language], JEHOVAH is my God." - ASV.

Ezek. 39:7 - "And my holy name will I make known ... and the nations shall know that I am JEHOVAH" - ASV. "The nations will know that I am YAHWEH" - NJB.

Ps. 83:16, 18 - "Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, [O Jehovah].... that men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." - KJV.

Ps. 135:13 - "Thy name, O Jehovah, endureth forever; Thy memorial name, O Jehovah, throughout all generations" - ASV.

We are to know and use Jehovah's name, but we must not misunderstand how extremely important it is to Him (and to us):

"You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who misuses his name." - Ex. 20:7, NJB [also NRSV, NIV, NEB, REB, GNB, NLV, ETRV].

God certainly didn't say, "Don't ever use my Holy Name"! By direct Bible statements and commands and by the clear, thousand-fold repeated examples of all the prophets of God in the OT we know that God's Holy Name must be known and used by his people - for all generations. Instead, this Scripture shows the extreme importance of that name (would God really punish anyone who misuses his name if that name weren't extremely important?) and that it must be used in a manner that shows its great importance.

(So what do you think of the undeniable removal of God's personal name by "Christian" translators from thousands of places in the OT where the inspired Bible writers originally placed it? After all, for hundreds of translations - in the last few centuries at least - we can see the actual Hebrew OT manuscripts which the "orthodox" translators used and compare that with their actual translations which remove God's name! Honestly, isn't this a terrible misuse of his Memorial Name? Isn't this "Christian" tradition inexcusable? How can it be supported by a true witness of Jehovah? How could it even be quietly condoned? Doesn't it illustrate a basic error that the vast majority of Christendom has embraced for many centuries? The complete elimination of the name of the "Hebrew" God has been a goal of the majority of Christendom for so long that its beginning is all but lost in the mist of time (see JHVHNT study paper). But for Christendom to claim that this was the case from the very beginning of Christianity is a terrible thing to do.)

Malachi 2:2; 3:16, 17 - "Unless you listen to me and pay heed to the honouring of my name, says [Jehovah], I shall lay a curse on you .... A record was written before [Jehovah] of those who feared him and had respect for his name. They will be mine, says [Jehovah] ... and I shall spare them" - REB.
(Doesn't the removal of Jehovah's name from the thousands of places in the inspired scriptures where it was originally written display a clear lack of respect for his Holy Name? How could there be a more blatant misuse of his Name?)

I don't understand how anyone can deny the extreme importance of God's eternal, holy name in the OT nor that that name was used respectfully much more than any other name (nearly 7000 times) throughout the OT. Nor that God foretold that it would have to be known worldwide by all the nations. And that name was YHWH in the OT! Nor can I understand anyone honestly refusing to admit that YHWH simply does not translate nor transliterate, by any stretch of the imagination, into "Lord"!

Therefore, if we translate YHWH to its most probable equivalent ("He Who Will Be [With You]" - see the I AM study) or transliterate it into a possible Hebrew form ("Yahweh" or "Yahowah" - see the PRONOUNCE study paper) or even its traditional English form ("Jehovah" - to match the traditional English form of "Jesus") and leave it where it was actually placed by the inspired OT writers, that is not only good but essential.

What are we doing if we purposely change the inspired scriptures; if we purposely remove an essentially important word 7000 times from the inspired Scriptures (and add words and meanings not used nor intended in the original)? We are not just interpreting and translating, but we are actually disobeying God's clear commandments concerning his Most Holy Name and disobeying his clear commandments concerning adding to and taking away from his inspired word! How can this possibly be Christian (whether it started in the 2nd century or the 17th century)? - - - And yet that is exactly what Bowman (and the majority of Christendom's scholars) advocates and supports!

So who really "has systematically abused the divine name...."?
----------------------------------------

For more concerning Rom. 9:5, see:
Is Rom. 9:5 really proof that Jesus is God? - " ... Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." - KJV (SFBT)

ROMANS 9:5: Is the Christ here "God"? (IDNWT)

"God Over All" in Romans 9:5: Translation Issues and Theological Import (JW United)

"The Coptic text of Romans 9:5 has some ambiguity, it appears to be less so than the Greek, and points clearly to two entities -- Christ and God" (Sahidic Coptic Insight on NT Verses)

1 John 5:20 "True God"

2010-11-24T11:31:00.000-08:00

1 JOHN 5:20

1 Jn 5:20 - "his Son, Jesus Christ. This [outos] is the true [alethinos] God, and eternal life." - KJV.

"We are in union with him who is true, through his son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." – AT.

"his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting." - NWT.

Bowman complains about the interpretation of 1 John 5:20 by JW's! Obviously the translation itself is little different from most trinitarian translations.

Some trinitarians, like Bowman, actually insist that the word "this" (outos) here refers to Jesus. In other words, "[Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life." For example, Bowman in his Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John states that Jesus is called

"`the true God and eternal life' ... indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament." - p. 41, Baker Book House, 1991 printing.

I understand why trinitarians are so desperate in their search for scriptural "evidence" that they have to make it up, but this is incredibly poor!

It is obvious that grammatically the word "this" (outos) could be referring to either the Father or Jesus in this particular scripture (see the footnote for 1 John 5:20 in the very trinitarian NIV Study Bible and the comments on 1 Jn 5:20 by the extremely trinitarian scholar A. T. Robertson in his Word Pictures, Vol. VI, p. 245.). But the fact that the true God (or "the true One") has just been identified as the Father of Jesus (1 Jn 5:20, TEV and GNB) makes it highly probable that "this is the true God" refers to the Father, not Jesus.

The highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up his 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows:

"Although it is certainly possible that outos refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to `the true one,' God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter." - p. 253, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Notice how this trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the true God here. He even tells us (and cites examples in his footnotes) that New Testament grammarians and commentators (most of them trinitarian, of course) agree!

So this single "proof" that the "true God" is a title for anyone other than the Father alone is not proof at all. The grammar alone merely makes it a possibility. The immediate context makes it highly improbable since (as in all other uses of the term) the true God (or the true one) was just identified as the Father ("We are in the one who is true as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and this is eternal life." - NJB; and "We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life." - TEV.).

So the immediate context makes it probable that the true God is the Father in this scripture also. If we include the context of all the uses of the `true God' in the NT, it is certain that He is the Father (whose personal name is Jehovah - Jer. 10:10, ASV; Ps. 83:18, KJV; Ex. 3:15, NEB). A quick glance at 1 Thess. 1:9 and 10, for example makes it very clear that "the true God" is the Father.

To clinch John's intended meaning at 1 John 5:20, let's look at his only other use of the term "the true God": John 17:1, 3, where, again (as in 1 Jn 5:20), he mentions Father, Son, and eternal life.

At John 17:1, 3 Jesus prays to the Father: "Father, .... this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." - New International Version (NIV). Here the Father alone is not only very clearly identified as the only true [alethinos] God, but Jesus Christ is again pointedly and specifically excluded from that identification ("and Jesus Christ whom you [the only true God] have sent")!

Notice how this respected trinitarian Bible has rendered John 17:1, 3 - "Father,....This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." - New English Bible (NEB).

Once again we find that even many trinitarian scholars agree with the JW interpretation. So just how is it that the NWT has "abused the divine name or titles" by translating 1 John 5:20 essentially as trinitarian Bibles do and by interpreting it as many, if not most, trinitarian scholars also do? Bowman is knowingly accusing the JWs falsely!

Also see:
1 John 5:20 (INDNWT)

"The Only True God" (Examining the Trinity)

1 John 5:20 "We are in him that is true, even in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." - KJV (Examining the Trinity)

If the Father is the "only true God" (John 17:3), does that mean that Jesus is a false god? (SFBT)

The Bible’s Viewpoint - Is There Only One True God? (WBTS)

Is Jesus Christ God? WHO IS “the Only True God”? (WBTS)

Joel 2:26, 32

2010-11-24T11:25:00.000-08:00

Joel 2:26, 32 - "And ye ... shall praise the name of Jehovah your God .... And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered." - ASV.

"You WILL ... praise the name of Yahweh your God .... All who call on [`invoke' - REB] the name of Yahweh will be saved" - NJB.

Here, like knowing God (Jn 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:8, 9), calling on (or invoking) Jehovah's name is an essential part of the road that leads to life.

Since it is a requirement to call upon, or invoke the name Jehovah, the knowledge and use of that name IS essential (as made known in the OT at least)! And, like knowing God, "calling upon his name, Jehovah" includes much more than merely pronouncing his name aloud in prayer. But, nevertheless, it does include the knowledge and use of his personal name, Jehovah (or Yahweh).

For example, Elijah, in his famous demonstration of who the only true God is, told the priests of Baal, "Call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of Jehovah: and the God that answers by fire, let him be God." So how did the priests of Baal call on the name of their god? "And they ... called on the name of Baal ... saying `O Baal, hear us.'" And how did Elijah call on the name of Jehovah? "O Jehovah .... Hear me, O Jehovah, hear me, that this people may know that thou, Jehovah, art God.... And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said [aloud, uncoded, in plain language], `Jehovah, he is God'" - ASV, 1 Ki.18:24, 26, 36-39. - Obviously, calling on (or invoking) the name of Jehovah includes the reverent use of that only personal name of the true God!

Concerning Joel 2:32, also see
Joel 2:32 (JWQ&A)