|
|
|
ATRI BIBLE SCHOOL |
Fall Bible School--2003
From the Ankerberg Theological Research
Institute
The New World Translation of
the Jehovah's Witnesses
By Dr. John
Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon
The Jehovah’s Witnesses
constitute a large and aggressive sect which has opposed the doctrines
of biblical Christianity from its inception. Many fine works have
already detailed the history and doctrines of this group and
contrasted the latter with biblical teaching.1 It is our goal in this
article to briefly critique the English translation of the Jehovah’s
Witnesses’ Watchtower Bible and Tract Society’s The New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT).
Our purpose will be to
determine the legitimacy of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claim to respect
and honor the Bible as divine revelation. If the Witnesses have not
translated God’s revelation with care and accuracy—but instead have
incorporated their own doctrinal bias in disregard of the Greek
text—then it is unlikely that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS)
is, as widely proclaimed, God’s sole channel for communicating His
will to mankind today.
Indeed, the combined
weight of four indisputable facts proves the Watchtower Society has no
regard at all for the Word of God. These four pillars of disproof of
Watchtower claims include their 1) pervasive unbiblical theology, 2)
clear bias in translation, 3) numerous false prophecies historically,
and 4) changes and contradictions in their doctrine, history and
important dates. 2
The Emphatic Diaglott
Before we begin our
analysis of the NWT, we should note that for about 70 years the
NWT was preceded in use by the Emphatic Diaglott,
published in 1864 by Benjamin Wilson and based on the 1806 recension
of J. J. Griesbach. Unfortunately, in utilizing this translation, the
Witnesses never informed their members that the translation was flawed
or that Wilson was a Christadelphian, who, holding similar doctrines
with Jehovah’s Witnesses, naturally sought a translation in harmony
with Christadelphian bias. For example, the Diaglott translates
Matthew 25:46 "agelasting cutting-off" and John 1:1 "the Word was a
god," both in harmony with Christadelphian (and Watchtower) denials of
eternal punishment and Christ’s deity respectively. 3
Professor Edmond Gruss of the Master’s College in southern California,
author of a standard work on Jehovah’s Witnesses, Apostles of
Denial, and a former member of the group, observes how the
Diaglott fits the needs of the newly formed Russellite (Jehovah’s
Witness) religion:
Wilson was
self-educated; his work shows that he certainly was not a scholar.
Neither did he have the respect of those who were scholars.
Obviously, his purpose was not to translate, but to justify his
theological views…. It may be concluded, then, that the Emphatic
Diaglott was adopted because of its Christadelphian bias which
agreed almost perfectly with the new Russellite group that was
forming. The Russellites accepted the renderings of Wilson, for they
did not have the linguistic ability either to evaluate or to
determine their correctness, nor did they wish to question that
which so perfectly supported their theories….4
In spite of his bias and
errors in translation, Wilson had claimed "scrupulous fidelity" to the
original languages:
Scrupulous fidelity has
been maintained throughout this version in giving the true rendering
of the original text into English; no regard whatever being paid to
the prevailing doctrines or prejudices of sects, or the peculiar
tenets of theologians. To the Divine authority of the original
Scriptures alone has there been the most humble and unbiased
submission.5
As we will see, the
Jehovah’s Witnesses also make similar claims to scholarly
objectivity—and yet also fail to live up to them.
The New World Translation
of the Holy Scriptures
Eventually the Watchtower
Society produced its own translation, The New World Translation of
the Holy Scriptures. The alleged manner in which this translation
was produced is relevant to note. We cite Professor Gruss who quotes
from a legal case wherein testimony was being given under oath. F. W.
Franz was the Society vice-president who testified before the Court of
Session, Edinburgh, November 23, 1954. F. W. Franz and N. H. Knorr
headed the secret committee of seven translators. The Scottish
Daily Express, November 24, 1954, records that Franz testified
that 1) he and Knorr have the final word in translation; 2) he, Franz,
was head of the Society’s Publicity Department, and 3) translations
and interpretations come from God in such a way that they are
invisibly communicated to the Publicity Department via "angels of
various ranks who control witnesses." 6
This is a rather startling admission, for the actual control of men by
"angels" or spirits sounds more like spirit possession than divine
inspiration. And perhaps it is instructive to note here that one
mediumistic translation which claims to originate in the spirit world
has translations similar to those of the NWT. The 1937 New
Testament translation by spiritistic medium Johannes Greber has
similar translations for John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:8 and is even quoted
by the WBTS in several of its books.7
Given the serious errors of translation in the NWT, if
Witnesses were actually controlled by "angels" of various ranks, these
spirits would of necessity have to be immoral angels; i.e., demons.
This fact would indeed explain the theological bias and anti-Christian
nature of their translation.
Whether the origin of the
NWT was from a supernatural source or not, the Watchtower Society
clearly made similar claims to translation accuracy as that of Wilson
cited previously. Of course, if Witnesses really believed the
translators were possessed by "angels," it would be easy to assume the
translation was divine and hence accurate even when the translators
themselves did not know the original languages. Regardless, we find
the WBTS claiming absolute fidelity to the Greek and Hebrew text.
Their Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures
declares:
Sincere searchers for
eternal, life-giving truth desire an accurate understanding of the
faith-inspiring Greek Scriptures, an understanding that will not be
confused by sectarian, denominational religious teachings but that
is fortified by the knowledge of what the original language says and
means. To aid such seekers of truth and life is the purpose behind
the publishing of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the
Greek Scriptures. Its literal interlinear English translation is
specially designed to open up to the student of the Sacred
Scriptures what the original Koine Greek basically or
literally says, without any sectarian religious coloration.8
And their New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures is even more assertive:
It is a very
responsible thing to translate the Holy Scriptures from their
original languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, into modern speech.
Translating the Holy Scriptures means a rendering into another
language the thoughts and sayings of the heavenly Author of this
sacred library of sixty-six books, Jehovah God, which holy men of
long ago put down in writing under inspiration for our benefit
today. That is a sobering thought. The translators who have a fear
and love of the divine Author of the Holy Scriptures feel especially
a responsibility toward Him to transmit his thoughts and
declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a
responsibility toward the searching readers of the modern
translation who depend upon the inspired Word of the Most High God
for their everlasting salvation. It was with such a sense of solemn
responsibility that the committee of dedicated men have produced the
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, over the course of
many years.9
In their text, All
Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial, the Jehovah’s
Witnesses make similar claims. Note their assertions to grammatical
accuracy:
The New World
Translation…conveys accurately the action or state expressed in the
Hebrew and Greek verbs…. The conveying of the state of the Hebrew
verb accurately into English is most important, otherwise the
meaning may be distorted…. Similar care has been exercised in the
translating of the Greek verbs…. The New World Translation…is
accurate and reliable…a faithful translation of God’s Word.10
The loftiness of these
claims is important to document in light of the New World
Translation’s repeated failure to live up to them. When one
realizes the magnitude of the claim and the impoverished result, one
must conclude that the Watchtower Society is engaging in purposeful
bias in its translation. As we will now document, at the point of
their own doctrinal distinctives, they have little concern with what
the Greek text actually says. Their only desire is to conform it to
their own preconceived and unbiblical theology.
Our analysis is divided
into two parts. Part one documents representative comments on the
NWT by those familiar with the original languages who have made a
study of the Jehovah’s Witnesses a scholarly pursuit, or are Greek
scholars themselves. Part two documents the accuracy of these claims
by citing specific examples of mistranslation from the NWT.
Scholars’ Comments on the
New World Translation
Dr. Robert Countess’
published doctoral thesis, The Jehovah’s Witness New Testament: A
Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982), is
perhaps the most thorough and devastating critique of the NWT.
His overall conclusions are that the NWT:
…has been sharply
unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing
the actual translation…the New World Translation of the Christian
Greek Scriptures must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work.
At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither
modern nor scholarly. And interwoven throughout its fabric is
inconsistent application of its own principles enunciated in the
Foreword and Appendix.11
Professor Edmond Gruss,
author of a standard historical and theological work, Apostles of
Denial, writes:
A sound interpretation
of any passage requires a careful grammatical exegesis. Watchtower
publications repeatedly present doctrines and interpretations of the
Scriptures which completely misunderstand or ignore grammar. Before
the Society entered into the field of translation, there were many
verses which gave them trouble because of their direct contradiction
of the Witnesses’ doctrines. With the appearance of the New World
Translation the difficult passages in many cases were weakened
or eliminated by a translation that violated or ignored the rules of
grammar.12
Dr. Anthony Hoekema,
author of The Four Major Cults points out that:
… the Jehovah’s
Witnesses actually impose their own theological system upon
Scripture and force it to comply with their beliefs. …their New
World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering
of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation
in which many of their peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society
are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself.13
The late Dr. Walter
Martin, author of Jehovah of the Watchtower, and a respected
authority on cults, observes that of the anonymous seven-member
translation committee at least five had no training in Greek:
These books possess a
veneer of scholarship unrivaled for its daring and boldness in a
field that all informed scholars know Jehovah’s Witnesses are almost
totally unprepared to venture into. As a matter of fact, the authors
have been able to uncover partially a carefully guarded Watchtower
secret: the names of five of the members of the New World
Translation committee. Not one of these five people has any training
in Greek…[or Hebrew].14
Dr. Bruce Metzger,
professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton
Theological Seminary and author of The Text of the New Testament
states: "…the Jehovah’s Witnesses have incorporated in their
translation of the New Testament several quite erroneous renderings of
the Greek." 15
Dr. Julius Mantey was one
of the leading Greek scholars in the world and co-author of The
Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar and A Hellenistic Greek Reader.
He declares:
I have never read any
New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear
Translation of the Greek Scriptures. In fact, it is not their
translation at all. Rather, it is a distortion of the New Testament.
The translators used what J. B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in
modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to
state what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and teach. That is
distortion, not translation.16
In light of the above
testimony, we must conclude that the scholarly Christian community has
rendered its verdict on the NWT: such a translation must not be
trusted to accurately convey God’s Word because of its unrelenting
biases in translation. Nor can Jehovah’s Witnesses appeal to an
alleged "trinitarian bias" on the part of these scholars for the issue
is not personal theology but accuracy in translation. Even
non-Christian scholars of New Testament Greek would agree that the NWT
is not an accurate one, for rules of languages, grammar, and
translation are true regardless of personal theological belief. We
will now proceed to document several examples of mistranslation in the
NWT, as confirmation of the above testimony and our thesis in general.
Examples of
Mistranslation
The Watchtower Society
tells us that "Jehovah is against such clergy prophets whom he did not
send forth from his intimate group and who ‘steal’ words from his
Bible in order to make a wrong application of them…he will rid himself
of this ‘burden’ by abandoning Christendom to calamity…. To such
self-opinionated religionists, the Jeremiah class [Jehovah’s
Witnesses] say: ‘You have changed the words of the living God…’" 17
The Witnesses also declare, "God does not deal with persons who ignore
his Word and go according to their own independent ideas."18
But who is it that really
"steals" or "ignores" God’s words in order to bolster their own
independent ideas?
In the following section
we have utilized the Watchtower Society’s New World Translation
and Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures
(1969). It gives the Greek text, a word for word English translation
below the Greek text, and, has a column containing the New World
Translation to the right.
In the following examples
we have provided the New World Translation and the New
American Standard translation so the reader may make a quick
comparison prior to a brief discussion. The NWT mistranslation
is supplied in capital letters for emphasis.
1. Matthew 25:46
["Punishment" is translated "cutting off" to support their theology of
annihilation of the wicked (or conditional immortality).]
• "And
these will depart into everlasting CUTTING-OFF but the righteous ones
into everlasting life." NWT
• "And
these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into
eternal life." NAS
The Greek kolasin
is translated "cutting-off" in order to escape the text’s teaching of
eternal punishment. How do standard Greek lexicons define kolasin?
J. H. Moulton and G.
Milligan in The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 352) give an illustration of the
meaning of kolasin as "punishment and much torment."
H. K. Moulton in The
Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1978, p. 235) defines it as "chastisement, punishment."
New Thayer’s Greek
English Lexicon (Wilmington, DE: Associated Publishers and
Authors, 1974, 1977, p. 353) defines it as "correction, punishment,
penalty."
The Arndt and Gingrich
Greek-English Lexicon (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967, p.
441) states "1. punishment… 2. of divine retribution…go away into
eternal punishment, Matt. 25:45."
Gerhard Kittle (ed) in
the Theological Dictionary of New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1978, Vol. 3, p. 816) defines it as "punishment."
Over hundreds of years,
words may evolve in meaning, hence kolasin at one time could be
translated "cutting-off," meaning the removal of that which is evil.
It could also have the meaning of punishment for the purposes of
correction. 19
However, that this was not its intended meaning in biblical
times is evident from the two quotations by Greek scholars, Mantey and
Trench, given below (Greek words are transliterated by this author):
In Jehovah’s Witnesses’
New World Translation and Kingdom Interlinear Translation
(Matt. 25:46), the Greek word kolasin, which is regularly
defined as "punishment" in Greek lexicons, is translated
"cutting-off," in spite of the fact that there isn’t a shred of
lexical evidence anywhere for such a translation. We have found this
word in first-century Greek writings in 107 different contexts and
in every one of them, it has the meaning of "punishment," and never
"cutting-off." But since their premise is that there can be no
eternal punishment, they have translated the Scripture to make it
somewhat compatible with their theology…. Kolasin is also
mistranslated "restraint" in 1 John 4:18.20
The kolasis aionios
of Matt. xxv.46, as it is plain, is not merely corrective, and
therefore temporary, discipline;…for in proof that kolasis
with kolazesthai had acquired in Hellenistic Greek this
severer sense, and was used simply as "punishment" or "torment,"
with no necessary underthought of the bettering through it of him
who endured it, we have only to refer to such passages as the
following: Josephus, Antt.xv. 2.2; Phil, De Agric. 9; Mart. Polycarp.
2; 2 Macc iv 38; Wisd. xix.4; and indeed the words of St. Peter
himself (2 Ep. II.9).21
2. John 8:58 ["I Am"
is translated as "I have been" in order to circumvent Christ’s deity.]
•
"Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came
into existence, I HAVE BEEN." NWT
•
"Jesus said to them,
‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am.’" NAS
The proper translation of
the Greek ego eimi is "I Am" not "I have been" (NWT). This is
an attempt to deny Christ’s statement of deity (cf. context) and to
replace it with something compatible to the Witnesses’ concept of
Christ’s limited pre-existence. Dr. Mantey states:
The translation of it
as "I have been" by Jehovah’s Witnesses is wrong. The footnote
stating that it is in "the perfect indefinite tense" is also wrong.
No Greek grammar, to my knowledge, has such a statement. In fact,
there is no form eimi in the perfect tense in the Greek New
Testament.22
It is also noteworthy
that Michael Van Buskirk, author of The Scholastic Dishonesty of
the Watchtower has two official Watchtower Society letters which
he quotes showing they have assumed four different grammatical
positions in regard to ego eimi: a) "present indicative first
person singular" (the correct designation); b) "a historical present";
c) the "perfect indefinite tense"—but only "in a general sense," and
d) "perfect tense indicative." 23
Again, there is no "perfect indefinite tense" as they claim (see 1950,
1953 eds.). Dr. Mantey also states there is no "perfect indicative in
this verse in Greek."24 The correct answer, of
course, is "present indicative, first person singular," but this
translates as "I Am," not as "I have been." If the Watchtower
Society had admitted (at least once) that the grammatical construction
was a "present indicative, first person singular," why did they never
translate it as such? In fact, one can look at their own Kingdom
Interlinear (p. 467) and directly beneath the Greek ego eimi we
find "I Am"; but the translation column to the right reads "I have
been."
3. Hebrews 9:27 [This
verse has the insertion of "for all time" to justify their belief in
conditional immortality.]
• "And
as it is reserved for men to die once FOR ALL TIME, [i.e., eternally]
but after this a judgment." NWT
•
"And inasmuch as it is
appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." NAS
Again looking at the
Kingdom Interlinear (p. 988) we find the addition of the words "for
all time" is without any justification. There is no Greek
correspondence. Mantey states:
Heb. 9:27, which
without any grounds for it in the Greek, is mistranslated in the J.
W. Translation—"And as it is reserved for men to die once for all
time, but after this is a judgment…." Note that the phrase "for
all time" was inserted in the former versions without any basis in
the original for it. No honest scholar would attempt to so pervert
the Word of God!25
4. Luke 23:43 [This
verse inserts a comma after "today," to support their belief in soul
sleep.]
• "And
he said to him: ‘Truly I tell you today, You will [i.e., later] be
with me in Para- dise.’" NWT
•
"And he said to him,
‘Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.’"
NAS
Their own Interlinear (p.
408) admits "in the original Greek no comma is found." The noted
commentator Lenski explains why the NWT is incorrect here:
It should no longer be
necessary to explain that "today" cannot be construed with "I say to
thee." To be sure, Jesus is saying this today—when else would he be
saying it? The adverb "today" is a necessary part of Jesus’ promise
to the malefactor. In fact, it has the emphasis. It would usually
take three or four days until a man would die on the cross, so
lingering was death by crucifixion. But Jesus assures this
malefactor that his sufferings will cease "today." This is plain
prophecy and at the same time blessed news to this sufferer. But
Jesus says vastly more: "Today in company with me shalt thou be in
Paradise!" This is an absolution. By this word Jesus acquits this
criminal of sin and guilt.26
5. Matthew 27:50/Luke
23:46 [The term "spirit" is translated as "breath" and/or "spirit"
in order to support conditional immortality.]
•
"Again Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and yielded up (his)
BREATH." NWT
•
"And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His
spirit." NAS
•
"And Jesus called with a loud voice and said ‘Father into your hands
I entrust my spirit.’ When he had said this he expired." NWT
•
"And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into thy
hands I commit my spirit.’ And having said this, He breathed His
last." NAS
In Matthew 27:50
pneuma (spirit) is translated "breath" rather than spirit, to
support their belief that no immortal spirit exists to be "yielded
up." Yet Luke 23:46, the parallel account of this same event
which includes the actual cry of Jesus, shows that the translation
"breath" is an impossible rendering as it would have Jesus crying out,
"Father into thy hands I commit my breath."
The question is this—If
in the New World Translation pneuma is translated "spirit" in
Luke, why is it translated "breath" in Matthew unless it is an attempt
to deny that Jesus’ spirit continued after His physical death?
Clearly, the Witnesses have distorted Matthew 27:50 although nothing
could really be done with the passage in Luke. 27
Again, their interlinear directly beneath the Greek translates "pneuma"
as "spirit" in both places (pp. 168, 409). Why then not in both
translations?
6. Acts 20:28 [The
phrase "with his own blood" is translated as "the blood of his own
(Son)," to circumvent Christ’s deity.]
• "Pay
attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy
spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of
God, which he purchased with THE BLOOD OF HIS OWN (SON)." NWT
• "Be
on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy
Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He
purchased with His own blood." NAS
The NWT interlinear
appendix justifying this translation (pp. 1160-61) refers to a few
manuscripts using "Lord" (i.e., supposedly Jesus) instead of God and
mentions "troublesome Greek words." It can offer this translation only
by unnaturally translating the Greek and concludes, "The entire
expression could therefore be translated ‘with the blood of his own.’" 28
Nigel Turner, an
authority who wrote the volume on Greek syntax in Moulton’s
three-volume Grammar of New Testament Greek, explains why the
Witnesses are wrong at this point:
The dying proto-martyr,
St. Stephen, addressed Jesus as if he were God. A pious Hellenistic
Jew would not pray at one less than God. It may not be so generally
appreciated that St. Paul slipped naturally and casually into the
affirmation that he who shed his blood upon the cross was God. The
reference is to Acts 20:28, where St. Paul at Miletus spoke to the
Christian elders about "the church of God which he bought for
himself by his own blood." The blood of God! Some aberrant
manuscripts have the inoffensive reading, "the church of the
Lord"—implying the Lord Jesus. But they must be rejected on the
ground that the more startling or difficult reading is the one
likely to be correct; scribes would not invent a conception of such
unexpected originality as "the blood of God." We are left with the
original and plain statement of St. Paul that Jesus is God, and it
worries those scholars who think that it represents a Christology
grammatical expedient whereby "his own" is understood as a noun
("his own One"), rather than a possessive adjective. In consequence,
standing as it does in the genitive case, one may place before it
the word "of": i.e., "of his Own." The expedient lowers the
Christology drastically and reduces St. Paul’s affirmation to
something like this: "the church of God which he bought for himself
by the blood of his Own"—as in the margin of the NEB. It is a
theological expedient, foisting imaginary distinctions into a
spontaneous affirmation, and is not the natural way to take the
Greek. It is unlikely to have been the meaning envisaged either by
St. Paul or the writer of the narrative. The easy thing would be for
them to add the word "Son," if that was intended.29
Even the Kingdom
Interlinear appendix itself admits:
grammatically, this
passage could be translated, as in the King James Version and Douay
Version, "with his own blood." In such case the verse would be
saying that God purchased his congregation with his own blood. That
has been a difficult thought with many…the ordinary translation
would mean to say "God’s blood."30
Nevertheless, the more
accurate and natural translation is rejected since it cannot be
true according to Watchtower theology, which denies the deity of Jesus
Christ.
7. Hebrews 1:8 ["Thy
throne O God" is translated "God is your throne" in order to
circumvent Christ’s deity.]
• "But
with the reference to the Son: ‘GOD IS YOUR THRONE forever, and (the)
scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.’" NWT
•
"But of the Son He
says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous
scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.’" NAS
Nigel Turner again
comments:
Happily in Heb. 1:8 the
NEB (New English Bible) no longer hesitates to accept in its text
the statement that Jesus is God. "Thy throne, Oh God, is for ever
and ever." It consigns to the margin the grotesque interpretation
which obscures the godhead of Jesus ("God is thy throne for ever and
ever").31
Thomas Hewitt states:
Some commentators have
taken "O God" to be nominative, either subject or predicate. If
subject, the translation would be "God is thy throne for ever and
ever." If predicate "Thy throne is God," or "The foundation of thy
throne is God." Such translations sound very strange and have no
parallel elsewhere. The AV, RV and RSV rightly support the vocative
and translate "Thy throne, O God"…. The Son, on the contrary, is
addressed by the Father not as a messenger but as God, who occupies
an eternal throne, and as Sovereign, who rules His Kingdom with
righteousness.32
Ryland’s Professor of
Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, F.F.
Bruce, declares that here the "Messiah can be addressed not merely as
God’s Son (verse 5) but actually as God…." 33
Verse 10 corroborates this.
8. Colossians 1:15-20
[This verse inserts the word "other" in parenthesis in order to deny
the eternal existence of Christ.]
• "He is the image of the
invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him
all (OTHER) things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the
things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are
thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All (OTHER) things
have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all
(OTHER) things and by means of him all (OTHER) things were made to
exist, and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the
beginning, the first-born from the dead, that he might become the one
who is first-born from the dead, that he might become the one who is
first in all things; because (God) saw good for all fullness to dwell
in him, and through him to reconcile again to himself all (OTHER)
things by making peace through the blood (he shed) on the torture
stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the
things in heaven." NWT
• "And
He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.
For by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or
authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is
before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also
head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born
from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in
everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness
to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself,
having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say,
whether things on earth or things in heaven." NAS
In this passage the
NWT adds five words not present in the Greek text, again,
in order to deny Christ’s deity. In Colossians 1:16, 17, 20 the term
"other" is inserted in brackets five times. This is done in order to
imply the meaning of the passage is that Christ Himself is not the
Creator. We grant that a translator may insert a word in italics or
brackets if it is necessary to accurately express the thought of the
original. But even a cursory reading of the context will show that
Christ is the Creator. Their own interlinear is again
embarrassing (p. 896) for it proves the word "other" is not in the
Greek. Yet this did not prevent earlier editions of the New World
Translation from using "other" without brackets, implying
it was part of the Greek (see the 1950, 1953 eds.). And even
the 1965 edition of Make Sure of All things Hold Fast to What is
Fine quotes Colossians 1:15-18 as if "other" were part of the
original Greek. No parenthesis brackets are present: "because by means
of him all OTHER things were created…. All OTHER things have been
created through him and for him." 34
In addition, modern
versions of the NWT insert the word "other" in Philippians 2:9, again
changing the meaning (i.e., "the name above every OTHER name") and
again without brackets or italics, implying it is in the original
when, in fact, it is not, as their own interlinear once again
demonstrates.
Jehovah’s Witnesses’
objectivity cannot become more questionable than through examples of
this type, where one adds to the divine text what is simply not
present in order to deny what is clearly taught. Nevertheless, the
Witnesses have somehow overlooked John 1:3 (which the NWT
translates correctly) and which clearly declares the doctrine of
Christ’s deity which they spuriously removed from Colossians: that if
Christ is the Creator of all things, He Himself must be
uncreated.
All things came into
existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came
into existence. NWT
While on the subject of
Christ as Creator, Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to the word prototokos
("first-born" in Col. 1:15) as alleged evidence of Christ being
"created." However, the word means priority and sovereignty over
creation, as the context reveals. Metzger observes:
Here he is spoken of as
"the first begotten of all creation," which is something quite
different from saying that he was made or created. If Paul had
wished to express the latter idea, he had available a Greek word to
do so, the word protoktistos, meaning "first created."
Actually, however, Paul uses the prototokes, meaning "first
begotten," which signifies something quite different, as the
following explanation by a modern lay theologian makes clear:
"One of the creeds says
that Christ is the Son of God "begotten, not created" and it adds
"begotten by his Father before all worlds." Will you please get it
quite clear that this has nothing to do with the fact that when
Christ was born on earth as a man, that man was the son of a virgin?
We are not now thinking about the Virgin Birth. We’re thinking about
something that happened before Nature was created at all, before
time began. "Before all worlds" Christ is begotten, not created.
What does it mean?
We don’t use the words
begetting or begotten much in modern English, but
everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the
father of: to create is to make. And the difference is just this:
When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A
man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers, and a bird
begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you
make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a
nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set…. Now that’s
the first thing to get clear.
What God begets is God;
just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as
what man makes is not man."
To return now to Col.
1:15 where Paul speaks of Christ as "the first begotten of all
creation," it is important to observe that the adjective "first"
refers both to rank as well as time. In other words, the Apostle
alludes here not only to Christ’s priority to all creation,
but also to his sovereignty over all creation.35
One can also mention
other Scriptures. In Psalms 89:27 "first born" clearly means
preeminence. In Jeremiah 31:9 Ephraim is the "first-born" although
Manasseh was literally born first, hence "first born" must refer
to rank or preeminence.
9. Colossians 2:9 [In
this verse "deity" is translated as "divine quality" in order to
circumvent Christ’s deity.]
•
"…because it is in him that all the fullness of the DIVINE QUALITY
dwells bodily." NWT
•
"For in Him all the
fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." NAS
The great grammarian, A.
T. Robertson, author of A Grammar of the Greek New Testament,
declares:
In this sentence…Paul
states the heart of his message about the Person of Christ. There
dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead
(the very essence of God, from theos, deitas) and not
to be confused with theiotes in Rom. 1:20 (from theios,
the quality of God, divinitas), here only in N. T. as
theiotes only in Rom. 1:20. The distinction is observed in
Lucian and Plutarch. Theiotes occurs in the papyri and
inscriptions. Paul here asserts that "all the pleroma (fullness) of
the Godhead," not just certain aspects, dwells in Christ and in
bodily form… dwells now in Christ in his glorified humanity… He
asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in
corporeal form.36
Metzger asserts:
Nothing could be
clearer or more emphatic than this declaration. It means that
everything without exception which goes to make the godhead, or
divine quality, dwells or resides in Jesus Christ bodily, that is,
is invested with a body in Jesus Christ. It is to be noticed also
that Paul uses the present tense of the verb, "dwells." He does not
say that the fullness of the divine quality "has dwelt" in Jesus
Christ, but that it "dwells" there.37
Gruss states:
The word theotes
is here translated "divine quality" which is not a literal or
correct rendering. Grimm-Thayer gave as the meaning of his word, "deity
i.e., the state of being God, Godhead: Col. ii. 9." The word for
"divinity" or "divine character" is found in Romans 1:20 and is
theiotes which is rendered by Grimm-Thayer as divinity, divine
nature." Cremer gives "the Godhead" as the meaning of theotes
and then says that the two words are to be distinguished: "theotes—that
which God is, theiotes—that which is of God." In the
discussion of these two words Trench writes concerning Colossians
2:9: "…St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the
fullness of absolute Godhead: they were no mere rays of divine glory
which gilded Him lighting up his person for a season and with a
splendour not his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect
God…."38
10. Titus 2:13, 2 Peter
1:1 [Cf., Eph. 5:5, 2 Thess. 1:12; our great God and Savior" is
translated as "the great God and the Savior" in order to deny Christ’s
deity.]
•
"…while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the
great God AND OF (THE) Savior of us, Christ Jesus." NWT (Titus 2:13)
•
"…looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our
great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." NAS (Titus 2:13)
The Greek of these first
two verses (in 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13) is very similar (megalou
being absent in 2 Peter):
(THE) TOU MEGALOU
THEOU KAI
(of our) great
God and
SOTEROS HEMON
CHRISTOU IESOU
savior of us
Christ Jesus
The New World
Translation changes the proper translation to separate Jesus
Christ from the term God, thereby denying His deity. In the NWT,
the verse is translated as if two persons are being spoken of, God and
Jesus, rather than one person only, i.e., Jesus Christ.
This violates a rule of
Greek grammar called the Granville Sharp rule. In simplified form it
states that, when two singular personal nouns [The rule applies to
personal nouns, singular not plural. A personal noun is distinguished
from a proper noun in this rule] of the same case ending (God and
Savior above, genitive case) are connected by "and" (kai) and
only the first noun has the modifying article "the" (tou) (the
second noun does not), it always means both nouns uniformly refer to
the same person. 39
When defined properly, the rule has no exceptions in the New
Testament. (See appendix.) In an exhaustive study of the Granville
Sharp rule, including its critics, C. Kuehne in the Journal of
Theology—Church of the Lutheran Confession (September 1973 to Dec.
1974, Vols. 13, nos. 3,4; Vol. 14, nos. 1-4), found the Sharp rule to
be without demonstrable exception in the entire New Testament.40
Thus "God" and "Savior" (underlined above) must both refer to
one person, i.e., to Jesus in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. In fact, in
ancient times the same phraseology ("god and savior") was used of a
ruling King so that it is obvious only one person was meant. These
verses must read "our God and Savior Jesus Christ." Bruce Metzger
observes:
In support of this
translation there may be quoted such eminent grammarians of the
Greek New Testament as P. W. Schmiedel, J. H. Moulton, A. T.
Robertson, and Blass-Debrunner. All of these scholars concur in the
judgment that only one person is referred to in Titus 2:13 and that
therefore it must be rendered, "Our great God and Savior Jesus
Christ…. All that has been written in the preceding section,
including the judgment of the grammatical authorities cited there,
applies with equal appropriateness to the correct rendering of II
Pet. 1:1. Accordingly, in this verse also there is an express
declaration of the deity of Jesus Christ, "…of our God and Savior
Jesus Christ."41
The Kingdom Interlinear
explanation of their translation on page 1163 is typically biased in
its own defense—sounding scholarly but misquoting Moulton’s Grammar,
as we will later document. Dana and Mantey in A Manual Grammar of
the Greek New Testament state: "The following rule by Granville
Sharp of a century back still proves to be true:… 2 Pt. 1:1…means that
Jesus is our God and Savior. After the same manner Tit. 2:13…asserts
that Jesus is the great God and Savior." 42
One may also note the
Greek scholar A. T. Robertson in his Word Pictures Volume 6,
page 147 ("One Person not two") and Winer-Schmiedel’s
Grammatik 8th ed., Leipzeig, Germany, page 158 ("Grammar demands
that one person be met.")
The reason why the KJV,
the American Standard Version and a few additional earlier versions
incorrectly translate such passages as Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, etc.,
is, in part, according to Robertson, due to the influence of the
grammatical work of George B. Winer. For over 100 years his work was
considered the best available and scholars were not inclined to
disagree with him.
However, Winer himself,
being an anti-trinitarian, admitted that it was not grammatical
grounds that led him to reject the correct rendering of Titus 2:13,
but theological ones. In the Winer-Moulton Grammar (as cited by
Robertson), page 162, Winer said, "Considerations derived from
Paul’s system of doctrine lead me to believe that soteros is
not a second predicate, co-ordinate with theou, Christ being
first called megas theos, and then sotar."
However, Robertson put it well when he said, "Sharp stands
vindicated after all the dust has settled. We must let these
passages mean what they want to mean regardless of our theories
about the theology of the writers."43
(For a discussion of why
Sharp’s rule is valid 100 % of the time, see the Appendix.)
11. John 1:1 ["God"
as "a god" in order to deny Christ’s deity.]
• "In
(the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was A god." NWT
•
"In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." NAS
The transliterated Greek
of this verse looks like this:
En arche en ho
logos kai ho logos
In beginning was the Word and the word
en pros ton theon
kai theos en ho logos
was toward the God and God was the Word
In essence, the
Watchtower Society claims it can translate theos as "a god"
because there is no definite article before this usage of "theos"
(God) in the last clause of John 1:1. Note that the first use of the
term God ("pros ton theon") has the article ("ton,"
the). The second use simply states "kai theos" ("and God," not
"and the God"). Because it does not say "and the God"
Jehovah’s Witnesses argue they are free to interpret this second usage
of God as figuratively meaning a lesser deity, "a god"—signifying
Christ’s exalted status, even though he is still only a creature.
Their main concern here is to escape the clear meaning of this
passage. Christ is here called theos, God.
The difficulty is that
had the apostle John used the article, he would have declared that "the
God was the Word." Had he done so, he would have confused the persons
of the Trinity and supported modalism (in the early church known as
the heresy of Sabellianism). In other words, to declare that "the
God was the word (Jesus)" would have stated that all of God, i.e., the
whole trinity, was Jesus. This would have supported modalistic belief
that there is only one Person in the Godhead (i.e., Jesus) and that
the terms Father, Son and Spirit in Scripture only refer to modes or
offices of the one God who exists as one person.
The apostle John had to
make a finer distinction and, on the one hand, clearly declare that
the person of Jesus was deity, but, on the other, not make it seem as
if all three persons in the Godhead were to be considered the same as
the person of Jesus. To make this fine distinction he had to use the
exact wording he used.
We should also note that
The Kingdom Interlinear (p. 1158-59) utilizes both Mantey and
Robertson’s Grammar in defense of their John 1:1 translation.
However, Mantey observes:
Since my name is used
and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted
on page 744 to seek to justify their translation, I am making this
statement…of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know none
have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have done. If the
Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1, the
implication would be that they are one and the same person,
absolutely identical. But John affirmed that "the Word was with
(the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so
writing, he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate
personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of
the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in
other words, that both are of the same nature, and that nature is
the highest in existence, namely divine…. The apostle John, in the
context of the introduction to his Gospel, is pulling all the stops
out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ, but also
his equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the
beginning, that He was with God, that He was God and that all
creation came into existence through him and that not even one thing
exists that was not created by Christ. What else could be said that
John did not say?44
As for Dr. Robertson,
they misstate his own position by selectively quoting him. As they
observe, Robertson does say that, "the absence of the article here is
on purpose." But Jehovah’s Witnesses do not explain why he says
this. He does so to indicate that to include the article "would
have been Sabellianism." 45
In his Word Pictures, Robertson provides a succinct analysis:
By exact and careful
language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos enho
logos. (The God was the Word). That would mean that all of God
was expressed in ho logos (the Word) and the terms would be
interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain
by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos)
just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is
spirit," not "spirit is God." So in I John 4:16 ho theos agape
estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a
so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article
with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in
John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not
"the flesh became Word."46
The Watchtower Society
appendix defending the "a god" rendering (Kingdom Interlinear,
p. 1158-60) again, appears scholarly, but is not. For example, they
misquote Dana and Mantey’s Grammar. In a letter dated July 11,
1974 to the WBTS, Mantey even demanded a public apology for these
repeated misquotings—as well as requested their discontinuance of
the use of his grammar: After citing numerous examples of
mistranslations, Mantey writes:
In view of the
preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of
context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar
of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for
24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your
publications from this time on.
Also that you publicly
and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words
had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos
in John 1:1…. On the page before the Preface in the grammar
are these words: "All rights reserved—no part of this book may be
reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the
publisher." If you have such permission, please send me a photocopy
of it. If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the
consequences.
Regretfully yours,
Julius R. Mantey47
Van Buskirk has also
documented Watchtower deception in detail in his Scholastic
Dishonesty of the Watchtower noting they also misquote A. T.
Robertson’s Grammar and other sources as well. They further
claim, "At Acts 28:6 we have a case paralleling that of John 1:1 with
exactly the same predicate construction, namely, with an anarthrous
[i.e., no definite article] OEOS [theos]" (The Kingdom
Interlinear, p. 1160). This at first seems to be true for there is
no definite article in Acts 28:6. What the Witnesses fail to mention
is that in John 1:1 the predicate nominative (theos)
precedes the verb; here in Acts it follows the verb and
thus is not applicable. Colwell’s rule (which is at issue here) states
that a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows
the verb and lacks the article when it precedes it:
It must be stated quite
frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation
seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light
which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation
is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic
errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter
of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful
mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek
grammar which necessitates the rendering, "…and the Word was God."
Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of
Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that,
"A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the
verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…. In a
lengthy Appendix in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation, which was
added to support the mistranslation of John 1:1, there are quoted
thirty-five other passages in John where the predicate noun has the
definite article in Greek. These are intended to prove that the
absence of the article in John 1:1 requires that OEOS must be
translated "a god." None of the thirty-five instances is parallel,
however, for in every case the predicate noun stands after the verb,
and so, according to Colwell’s rule, properly has the article. So
far, therefore, from being evidence against the usual translation of
John 1:1, these instances add confirmation to the full enunciation
of the rule of the Greek definite article. Furthermore, the
additional references quoted in the New World Translation from the
Greek of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, in order
to give further support to the erroneous rendering in the opening
verse of John, are exactly in conformity with Colwell’s rule, and
therefore are added proof of the accuracy of the rule. The other
passages adduced in the Appendix are, for one reason or another, not
applicable to the question at issue. (Particularly inappropriate is
the reference to Acts 28:6, for no one has ever maintained that the
pagan natives of Malta regarded Paul as anything other than "a
god.")48
Van Buskirk points out
that the Witnesses have attempted to deny Colwell’s Rule by quoting
Phillip B. Harner’s article in Journal of Biblical Literature,
"Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1"
(Vol. 92, 1973, p. 87). However, a full year earlier Dr.
Mantey’s own letter to the Watchtower Society demanding they stop
misquoting him pointed out that not only had they misquoted Colwell’s
rule but that it is impossible to quote Harner in denial of Colwell
since Harner himself supports the rule and denies the possibility of
an "a god" translation. Van Buskirk observes:
One’s mind staggers at
the depths to which someone will sink to prove his point. In the
Watchtower’s case both Colwell and Harner show that in John 1:1 "a
god" is not a permissible translation. Yet without blinking an eye
they will quote, out of context, the man who refutes them. Harner’s
article in no way concludes what the Watchtower makes it conclude in
their letter.49
Van Buskirk goes on to
discuss exactly what Harner concluded and how his research is
complementary to Colwell’s; it simply brings out new information.
Nevertheless, even if we
were to assume the truth of what the Watchtower Society claims in
their appendix, they have violated their own "rule" in John 1:1 94% of
the time. Robert H. Countess, writing in The Jehovah’s Witnesses’
New Testament, documents this in detail. 50
In John 1 alone they violate their principle at least five times.
Checking their interlinear (pp. 417-19) we see the following:
John 1:6 para theou—no
definite article
John 1:12 tekna theou—no
definite article
John 1:13 ek theou—no
definite article
John 1:18 Theon—no
definite article
John 1:23 odon Kuriou—no
definite article
If the absence of the
article demands the "a god" rendering, why is it not so rendered here?
In fact, where is it in 94% of the instances of such construction in
the NWT? Clearly translating John 1:1 "a god" is not only a
violation of Greek grammar, it is unjustified even in light of the
vast majority of their own translation. Obviously then, in the above
passages in John 1:1 (NWT), the translation should be "God," not "a
god."
(As an aside, the NWT
at John 1:23 translates the Greek kurios (Lord) as "Jehovah,"
since it is a clear reference to Jehovah God from Isaiah. Yet,
according to their John 1:1 rendering, with no definite article it
should be "a Jehovah." If "a god" must be different from God, "a
Jehovah" must then be different from Jehovah. At this point we would
have three Gods: "Jehovah," "a god" and "a Jehovah.")
12. Philippians 1:23
[The word "depart" is translated as "releasing" to support a belief in
soul sleep.]
• "I
am under pressure from these two things; but what I do desire is the
RELEASING and the being with Christ…." NWT
•
"But I am hard-pressed
from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ,
for that is very much better." NAS
Walter Martin states:
The rendering, "but
what I do desire is the releasing," particularly the last word, is a
gross imposition upon the principles of Greek exegesis because the
untutored Russellites have rendered the first aorist active
infinitive of the verb analuoo (analusai) as a
substantive (the releasing), which in this context is unscholarly
and atrocious Greek. In order to translate it "the releasing" the
form would have to be the participle construction (analusas).51
(Martin also shows that
in 2 Timothy 4:6 the Witnesses accept the similar form of the
same word as meaning death, but they cannot do so in Philippians 1:23
for reasons of theological bias.)
13. Matthew 24:3 [The
word "coming" as "presence" to justify the "invisible presence" of
Jesus theory.]
•
"….Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of
your PRESENCE and of the conclusion of the system of these things?"
NWT
•
"….Tell us, when will
these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the
end of the age?" NAS
The Greek word
parousia according to its context should be translated coming.
(It can be translated "presence" but context must determine which is
correct.) Martin states:
Jehovah’s Witnesses
claim scholarship for this blanket translation of parousia,
yet not one great scholar in the history of Greek exegesis and
translation has ever held this view. Since 1871, when Pastor Russell
produced this concept, upon examination, it has been denounced by
every competent scholar. The reason this Russellite rendering is so
dangerous is that it attempts to prove that parousia, in
regard to Christ’s second advent, really means that His return or
"presence" was to be invisible and unknown to all but "the faithful"
(Russellites, of course)…. To conclude that presence necessarily
implies invisibility is also another flaw in the Watchtower’s
argument, for in numerous places where they render parousia
"presence," the persons spoken of were hardly invisible. (See 1 Co.
16:17, 2 Co. 7:6; and 10:10.)52
Thus, in the New
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon under the word parousia we
find these comments: "In the N.T., esp. of the advent, i.e., the
future, visible, return from heaven of Jesus, the Messiah, to raise
the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously
the kingdom of God: Mt. 24:3." 53
14. [The Translation
of the YHWH as Jehovah.]
We can see biased
translations in other areas as well, even in the Witnesses’ own term
Jehovah which is so important to them as allegedly signifying
the "true" name of God. The NWT adds Jehovah to the New
Testament text over 200 times, in spite of the fact that "Jehovah" is
not found anywhere in the Bible, New or Old Testament. Yet they claim
the New Testament originals were "tampered with" and that the
tetragrammaton (YHWH) was surreptitiously removed, substituting
kurios (Lord) and theos (God). The fact is that YHWH never
occurs in any New Testament Greek manuscripts and in only one
Septuagint copy. 54
There is simply no evidence of tampering.55
The truth is that YHWH
can be translated different ways since the insertion of vowels is
arbitrary. YHWH could have been Jehovah or JiHiViH or JaHiVeH, etc. In
other words, the translation of kurios and theos as
JEHOVAH in the New World Translation (237 times) is a
completely unjustified translation. We simply do not know the "true"
name of God. Metzger observes: "The introduction of the word ‘Jehovah’
into the New Testament text, in spite of much ingenuity in an argument
filled with a considerable amount of irrelevant material (p. 10-25),
is a plain piece of special pleading." 56
There is another obvious
reason for using "Jehovah" in place of "Lord"; it thereby denies the
deity of Christ where the term "Lord" (applied to Jesus) connotes the
meaning of Jehovah in the Old Testament. Often, when the New Testament
refers to Christ as "Lord," it is associating Him with Jehovah in the
Old Testament. The Watchtower Society has even had to be inconsistent
in its translation, translating kurios variously as "Jehovah"
or "Lord" to suit their own theology. For example, if we look at
The Kingdom Interlinear (p. 723) for Romans 10:11, kurios
is translated Lord, but in verse 13 the same word, kurios,
(which here clearly refers to Jesus) is now translated "Jehovah"
rather than "Lord" or "Jesus." In both places the term Lord refers to
Jesus and connotes His deity but the New World Translation
hides this by the translation of "Lord" in verse 11 and "Jehovah" in
verse 13 implying the entire section refers to Jehovah—but not to
Jesus. Likewise, Philippians 2:10-11 clearly refers to Jesus and is
based on Isaiah 45:22-25, referring to Jehovah (see Rom. 14:9-11). Yet
if kurios were translated Jehovah in Philippians 2 it would
mean Jesus is identified with Jehovah, and the Watchtower Society
could not permit such a translation. Hence, kurios is here
translated "Lord." Thus, it is only where kurios can be
translated Jesus and not simultaneously imply His deity, that it is so
translated.
15. [Additional
Examples]
In addition to the above
examples, we may note that Professor Gruss observes a number of other
errors in translation. 57
In Matthew 24:6,14; 1 Peter 4:7; 2 Corinthians 11:15; Revelation 19:20
and elsewhere words are added that are not in the Greek. And despite
the claim to not engage in paraphrasing, the New World Translation
repeatedly paraphrases when Scripture refers to believers being "in
Christ." All believers everywhere can be in Christ only if
Jesus is God. But in the NWT the term "in Christ" (Greek en)
is often mistranslated, e.g., as "in union with" (Christ) or something
similar. The Witnesses then interpret this to mean a union of purpose
rather than an "organic" spiritual union.
Gruss comments:
With the same Greek
word being translated properly in every case except when it refers
to the believer’s personal relationship with Christ, it must be
concluded that the translator’s paraphrasing is nothing less than
interpretation. One loses confidence in a translation which
professes to be literal when it is replete with biased
paraphrases.58
In Philippians 3:11 the
Greek exanastasis (resurrection) is erroneously translated
"earlier resurrection." And, in John 13:18, 17:12, 19:24 and 19:36 the
exact same Greek words are translated four different ways. Robert H.
Countess refers to additional mistranslations. 59
Our only conclusion is
that the WBTS can hardly be concerned with accurately translating the
New Testament in light of such examples.
So far we have referred
to the New Testament portion of the New World Translation. What
of the Old Testament? Although space does not permit illustrations,
according to reviewers it is not much improved. In his discussion,
British scholar H. H. Rowley asserts, "From beginning to end this
volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be
translated…." and he calls it "an insult to the Word of God." 60
Gruss points out that their translation of the Old Testament has the
same basic purpose as that of the New, to justify preconceived
Watchtower theology.61
We should emphasize again
that our analysis of the New World Translation here is not a
result of "biased trinitarian theology" as Witnesses are fond of
claiming. If those quoted above are biased it is toward a respect for
rules of grammar and divine revelation. A Christian should feel free
to challenge a Witness by appealing to non-Christian authorities at
this point. Any university Greek professor could be consulted for his
view of the New World Translation at John 1:1, Matthew 25:46,
etc.
In conclusion, the above
examples represent only a small percentage of the mistranslations and
biases of the New World Translation. We must now ask, "Has the
Watchtower Society passed or failed the test of accurately translating
the Bible?" If it has failed, as it has, it cannot claim either
adherence to or a respect for divine revelation. And if it has no
respect for God’s Word, can it possibly be the sole channel through
which God has chosen to operate on earth?
Bibliography
1. Brown, Colin (ed.),
The New International Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973).
2. Caris
Newsletter, May 1978, Vol. 2, no. 2 & 3 (Santa Ana, CA: CARIS,
1978).
3. Countess, Robert,
The Jehovah’s Witnesses New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1983).
4. Dana, H. E. and
Mantey, Julius, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Toronto, Canada: MacMillian, 1957).
5. Gruss Edmond,
Apostles of Denial (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976).
6. Hoekema, Anthony,
The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960).
7. Mantey, Julius,
Depth Exploration in the New Testament (NY: Vantage Press,
1980).
8. Martin, Walter,
Jehovah of the Watchtower (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1974).
9. Robertson, Archibald
T., Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN:
Broadman, 1930).
10. Turner, Nigel,
Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T and T.
Clark, 1965).
11. Thayer, J. H.,
New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (Wilmington, DE: Associated
Publishers and Authors, 1977).
12. Trench, R. C.,
Synonyms of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1978).
13. Van Buskirk,
Michael, The Scholastic Dishonesty of the Watchtower (Santa
Ana, CA: CARIS, 1976).
14. Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the
Greek Scriptures (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1969).
15. ______, The New
World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Brooklyn, NY:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1961).
16. ______, All
Scripture is Inspired by God and Beneficial (Brooklyn, NY:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1963).
17. ______, Make
Sure of All Things Hold Fast to That Which is Fine (Brooklyn,
NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1965).
18. Wilson, Benjamin,
The Emphatic Diaglott New Testament, Interlinear Edition
(Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1942).
19. Wuest, Kenneth,
Word Studies in Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1971).
Appendix: Granville Sharp
In The King James Only
Controversy, James White points out that, "Most attacks upon
Granville Sharp’s Rule happened based upon less-than-full or accurate
definitions of it. A review of the current literature shows that most
modern grammars do not give full definitions when presenting Granville
Sharp’s work." (The King James Only Controversy, p. 268) White
cites Kenneth Wuest, Curtis Vaughan and Vitrus Gideon as examples. In
their grammar, Dana and Mantey "give probably the most accurate
definition" but even here the definition is not an accurate rendering
of what Granville Sharp actually stated. "It has been due to these
less-than-accurate definitions that Sharp’s Rule has become the target
of much criticism." (Ibid., p. 269) White cites A. T. Robertson’s,
The Minister and His Greek New Testament pages 61-68 as having one
of the best discussions on the subject under the title, "The Greek
Article and the Deity of Christ." Robertson provided an accurate
rendering of Sharp’s Rule and much relevant discussion. White also
tracked down an 1807 edition of Sharp’s work entitled "Remarks on the
Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament:
Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages
which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version [i.e., the
KJV]." (Philadelphia: B.B. Hopkins & Co., 1807).
Sharp’s Rule, according
to Sharp, is given as follows in this work (p. 3):
When the copulative
kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either
substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description,
respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes,
properties, or qualities, good or ill] if the article ho, or
any of its cases, precedes the first of the set nouns or
participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or
participle, the latter always relates to the same person that
is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it
denotes a farther [i.e., further] description of the first named
person. (emphasis added)
White proceeds to point
out that the key issue here is that Sharp’s rule is valid only for
singulars, not plurals, and is not intended to be applied to proper
names. In other words, the rule applies to persons, not things. This
means that Sharp’s Rule is significantly more limited in scope than
many modern definitions indicate. This also explains the controversy
over this rule:
Does this more accurate
and definite definition make a big difference? Indeed it does! There
are seventy-nine occurrences of "Granville Sharp" constructions in
the writings of Paul, using Vaughan and Gideon’s definition. Hence,
here we have constructions that mix singulars and plurals,
descriptions of places and things, and constructions that reflect
both nouns as having the article. A quick glance over the list
reveals a maximum of fifteen exceptions, and a minimum of five. Even
this ratio would be considered very good for a general rule of
grammar. However, Sharp claimed that the rule always held
true. Obviously, if the modern versions of his rule are accurate,
Sharp was not. (Ibid., p. 270)
White goes on to point
out that when the rule is properly defined, it is without
exception in the entire New Testament:
But when the
constructions in the New Testament that truly follow Granville
Sharp’s Rule are examined, a very unusual thing happens: it is
found to be entirely without exception! As Robertson quotes from
Sharp’s work, "But, though Sharp’s principle was attacked, he held
to it and affirms (p. 115) that though he had examined several
thousand examples of this type, …he had never found an exception."
(citing Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament,
p. 62) From my own research, I concur with Sharp. (White, Ibid., p.
270)
Notes:
1 Note: all Jehovah’s
Witness texts are published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society (WBTS, 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, NY 11021). Standard
works include Edmond Gruss, Apostles of Denial (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker, 1976) (unless noted otherwise, all references to Gruss
are from this text); Walter Martin, Jehovah of the Watchtower
(Chicago, IL: Moody, 1974); Anthony Hoekema, Jehovah’s Witnesses
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981). (Also published in The Four
Major Cults.)
2 See our The Facts
On the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest House); also
Gruss, discusses each of these, cf., his The Jehovah’s Witness
and Prophetic Speculation (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1972).
3 Benjamin Wilson,
The Emphatic Diaglott New Testament (Interlinear Edition,
Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1942), pp. 106,
372.
4 Gruss, pp. 194-96.
5 Wilson, p. 3
"Preface."
6 Gruss, pp. 32-33,
219. See also The Watchtower, September 1, 1932, p. 263;
Light, Vol. 1, 1930, pp. 106, 120, 218; Vol. 2, 1930, pp. 12,
20; Vindication, Vol. 3, 1932, p. 250, Preparation,
1933, pp. 36, 67.
7 For documentation see
William and Jean Cetnar, Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses
(Kunkletown, PA: 1983), pp. 48-55.
8 The Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (Brooklyn, NY:
WBTS, 1969), p. 5.
9 The New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Brooklyn, NY: WBTS, 1961),
p. 5.
10 All Scripture is
Inspired by God and Beneficial (Brooklyn, NY: WBTS, 1963), pp.
226-30
11 Robert Countess,
The Jehovah’s Witness New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1983), pp. 91, 93.
12 Gruss, pp. 236-37.
13 Anthony Hoekema,
The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), pp.
238-39.
14 Martin, pp. 129,
175-78, cf., Gruss, p. 198.
15 Bruce Metzger, "The
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ," rpt. of April 1953,
Theology Today (Princeton, NJ: Theological Book Agency, 1953),
p. 74.
16 Julius Mantey,
Depth Exploration in the New Testament (NY: Vantage Press,
1980), pp. 136-37.
17 "The Royal Shepherd
of Bible Prophecy," The Watchtower, Vol. 100, no. 17, Sept.
1, 1979 (Brooklyn, NY: WBTS), p. 30.
18 The Watchtower,
March 15, 1972, p. 189.
19 Colin Brown, The
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973), Vol. 3, "Punishment"; R. C. Trench,
Synonyms of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1978), pp. 24-25.
20 Mantey, Depth
Exploration, p. 142.
21 Trench, pp. 25-26.
22 Mantey, p. 137.
23 Michael Van Buskirk,
The Scholastic Dishonesty of the Watchtower (Santa Ana, CA:
Christian Apologetics and Research Information Service, 1976).
24 Ibid.
25 Mantey, Depth
Exploration, pp. 142-43.
26 R. C. H. Lenski,
The Interpretations of St. Luke’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg Publishers House, 1961), pp. 1145-46.
27 Martin, p. 135.
28 The Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, p. 1160.
29 Nigel Turner,
Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. and
T. Clarke, 1965), pp. 14-15.
30 The Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, p. 1160.
31 Turner, p. 15.
32 Thomas Hewitt, in
the Tyndale’s New Testament Commentary Series, The Epistle to the
Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973), pp. 56-57.
33 F. F. Bruce, The
Epistle to the Hebrews in The New International Commentary of
the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973), p. 20.
34 Make Sure of All
Things Hold Fast to That Which is Fine (Brooklyn, NY: WBTS,
1965), p. 364.
35 Metzger, p. 77; also
Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol.
2, "Hebrews" (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 46.
36 A. T. Robertson,
Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 4 (Nashville, TN:
Broadman, 1930), p. 491.
37 Metzger, pp. 77-78.
38 Gruss, pp. 204-205.
39 The rule applies to
personal nouns, singular not plural. A personal noun is
distinguished from a proper noun by this rule (cf., Kuehne’s
article, see fn. 40).
40 From a condensation
of Kuehne’s article published in the CARIS newsletter May 1978, Vol.
2, no. 2, stated to be accurate by Kuehne in Vol. 2, no. 3,
"letters".
41 Metzger, p. 79.
42 Dana and Mantey,
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto, Canada:
MacMillian, 1957), p. 147.
43 James White, The
King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany 1995) p.
270.
44 Mantey, Depth
Exploration, pp. 138-39.
45 A. T. Robertson,
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman
Press, 1934), pp. 767-68.
46 A. T. Robertson,
Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 4-5.
47 As quoted in our
The Facts on Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 48.
48 Metzger, pp 75-76.
49 Van Buskirk, p. 16.
50 Countess, Chapter 4,
pp. 54-55; Appendix Table 5.
51 Martin, p. 136.
52 Ibid., p. 141.
53 J. H. Thayer, New
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (Wilmington, DE: Associated
Publishers and Authors, 1977), p. 490.
54 Countess, p. 23;
Gruss, pp. 198-99.
55 Gruss, pp. 198-200;
Martin, pp. 129-31.
56 Bruce Metzger,
The Bible Translator, July 1964, p. 152, cited in Gruss, p. 200.
57 Gruss, pp. 200-205.
58 Ibid., p. 201.
59 Countess, ch. 6.
60 Rowley, "How Not to
Translate the Bible," The Expository Times, Nov. 1953, pp.
41-42, cf., Jan. 1956, p. 107; cited by Gruss, Apostles of Denial,
pp. 212-13.
61 Gruss, p. 213.
|
|
|
THE JOHN
ANKERBERG SHOW |
|
Make a donation to
The
John Ankerberg Show
If you have
been
ministered to today, please help us minister to others by making
a contribution to the ministry.
Please enter gift amount then press
"Make a Donation"
CLICK HERE
TO WATCH ONLINE
DR. JOHN ANKERBERG'S RESPONSE TO CREATION QUESTIONS
Dr. John Ankerberg answers your
questions on creation in the following article available both as
a downloadable PDF and broken down into individual questions for
online reading. Click the link below to read:
Does Scientific Evidence Today Show
that God Created the Heavens and the Earth? And What Does the Bible Say
About When He Created?
|
Copyright 2006, Ankerberg Theological Research Institute
|
