Jehovah's Witnesses and the New World Translation

The Translators and the Watchtower’s Claims of Scholarship

This evening we're looking at the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation. The translators, interestingly enough, you'll search in vain through your New World Translation looking for the names of the translators.

The reason is, according to the society anyway, is that they do not want to give any glory to any particular man. I'm not sure if that's really the complete reason. In 1980, Raymond Franz, who was on the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, was disfellowshipped.

In a book he wrote entitled Crisis of Conscience, he reveals the names of the people who served on the translation committee of the New World Translation. Of the people who served on the committee, only one man had any training in biblical languages whatsoever.

About a year and a half of Greek. It's unclear whether that was classical or koiné, I have a feeling it was classical.

Greek.

It wasn't even the Greek of the New Testament, as I understand. But this was the only official training that any of these people had received. And so though most Jehovah's Witnesses really feel that this translation here is extremely scholarly, it's the most accurate, so on and so forth, the fact of the matter is they have no credentials to back up the claims that they're making at that point.

Now the New World Translation is known for the fact that most of them will have numerous appendices in the back, and these appendices will address various translational questions, and I would say mistranslations, in the NWT, and many of them will quote true scholars of the Greek language, A .T. Robertson, Danan Manti, other true scholars of the Greek language in the appendix.

What is interesting is the fact that the writing department of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has access to a library that is one of the largest in the world as far as religious literature goes.

They have access to just about everything that there is. And what is unfortunate is that they search high and low for any kind of quotation from this mountain of literature that would support their position while passing over vast amounts of quotations that completely and totally disagree with their presentation and their position.

And it must be a hard thing for a person to work in the writing department and have to ignore the vast majority of the references they look up because they don't support a particular position taken by a society.

But this we see over and over again when we examine the New World Translation. The Greek text utilized by the Watchtower Society is Westcott and Hort's text of 1881. There are more modern texts, which it might have been better if they had followed, but I have no particular problem with the Westcott and Hort at all.

I realize that in the forward of the 1984 edition of the NWT, we read that the translators attempted to render things as accurately as possible. And what I'd like to examine in that is whether they did a very good job of rendering things as accurately as possible.

And as we're looking through these, I'd like you to keep in mind what is it that is being spoken of in each of these passages that we examine. Is there a common thread, doctrinally or in a theological realm, between these what we will call mistranslations or very tortured translations or something like that?

See if there is some type of a reason possibly behind these translations. I think after we do just a few of them, you'll see that there is indeed a common thread between all of them. And one last thing before we actually get into examining some mistranslations.

You might wonder, why in the world would you take the time even to examine this? You're going to be talking about some complicated issues. You're going to be getting into some things that most Christians would never deal with.

Why do this? The main reason is Christianity is based upon the teachings of the Bible. The Bible is our guidebook. The Bible provides us with the information that we have concerning who Jesus is and what his work was.

And so if you can change the Bible, if you can in some way alter its message, you can alter the very fabric of the faith that is based upon it. And so it is an important thing to accurately translate the text of Scripture.

Paul did not read or write English. In fact, English didn't even exist at the time that Paul lived. We are reading translations of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. And so we must be able to examine the credentials and the accuracy of those people who would translate the Scriptures for us, unless we're going to take the time to learn the Greek language ourselves, or Hebrew, or something like that, so that we don't have to rely on someone else's translation.

And of course, that takes many hours of study and work. Most people don't have the opportunity of doing that, and so they must rely on translations. And so what we're going to do is we're going to examine just how accurately the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has translated the things from the Scriptures.

Matthew 25:46 and Eternal Punishment

So if you'll take your Kingdom Interlinear Translation and look with me first at Matthew chapter 25, verse 46. Now most people, at least for a while, will probably still have the purple edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, so I'm not giving you page numbers in the purple one.

The page numbers are different. The page number in the New 85 Kingdom Interlinear is page 137. It is not that in the old purple edition. It is page 153 in the old purple edition. So as you can see, there's a few pages different there.

So when I give you a page, that'll be in the new blue 1985 Kingdom Interlinear. The New World Translation, which you'll find along the right-hand side of the page, says in Matthew 25, verse 46, "...and these will depart into everlasting cutting off, but the righteous ones into everlasting.

Life.".

The word that is questionable here is the Greek term koloson, which you see in your interlinear portion, translated cutting off, or in the interlinear portion it says lopping.

Off.

Now, it is true that at one point in history, koloson meant cutting off or lopping off. Unfortunately, that was hundreds of years before the period in which the New Testament was written. At the time the New Testament was written, the Koine Period, it meant punishment.

Punishment. Almost every translation I've ever read contains that meaning of punishment, not cutting off. Now you say, well, why might you mention this? Well, the fact of the matter is that the Watchtower-Bobbing-Tracks Society does not believe in eternal punishment.

And if you'll look at the text here, you'll see that you have eternal life, and you have eternal punishment, and they're parallel to each other. However long life is, so is punishment. And I have a feeling that to cloud this issue, to be perfectly honest with you, this mistranslation has been introduced into the text.

Cutting off instead of punishment. Now, undoubtedly the most famous translation, if we can use that term in the New World Translation, is John chapter 1 verse 1. John 1 1. John chapter 1 verse 1. Here on the board I have written from the Greek text John 1 1, which says, En arche ein halagas, kai halagas ein prostan theon, kai theos ein halagas.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Now as you can see in the New World Translation, the NWT translates it, In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God.

Society has expended great time, money, and effort to substantiate this translation. They have quoted out of context numerous scholars, including Dana and Manti from Emmanuel Grammar of the Greek New Testament, to attempt to substantiate this.

Let's look at the actual text and see what is being said. En arche ein halagas. In the beginning was the Word. This word ein is the imperfect form of I am me. I am me is a simple existence verb. It means I am.

It simply states that the Word was in existence in the beginning. It is timeless. It does not point to any point of origin or beginning whatsoever. Whenever that beginning was, the Word was already in existence.

In fact, all the way through the first 14 verses of John, the writer of John is very, very careful to differentiate between two verbs. This verb right here, ein, and another verb, genemai, or as it is found in this passage in the Aorist form, genetah.

You say, what does that have to do with the price of butter in Russia? Genetah refers to a point of origin, a source, a beginning. When he talks about all things, when he talks about John, he says these things became, they started.

But when he talks about the Word, halagas, he says ein. He does not use a verb that points to a point of origin or a beginning. Now, the only time this changes is in verse 14 when it says the Word became flesh.

Here he uses a genetah. Well, of course he does. Because there was a point in time at which the Word became flesh. The Word was not eternally flesh. The Word became flesh at a point in time. And so this use of the verbs is very important in John's thinking.

So what he says here in the first clause of John 1 .1 is that the Word is eternal. The Word has always been. However far you want to push NRK back. You can take it back to the beginning of creation if you wish.

The Word is already in existence. You can push it as far back into eternity as you want. The Word still is. This is his first part of this verse. The second phrase says,. Now, this is interesting. A person reading the first phrase would get the idea that halagas is eternal.

Now, to a monotheistic Jew such as John, the only thing that was completely and totally eternal, that was not a creation of God in any way, shape, or form, was God himself. And so we have this idea of the Word here being eternal.

And in the very next phrase he says,. And we see here two persons. We have the Word, and of course we know that in John 1 .14 this Word is identified as Jesus Christ. The Word was eternally with God. Now, if you stopped right there, you'd get the idea that the Word may be eternal, but the Word is to be completely and totally distinguished from God.

And there is indeed a distinguishing here between lagas and theon. But, he didn't stop there. He added the next phrase,. And the Word was God. So, there is a, here in the second word, we have a second phrase, clause, we have a word, Pros means face to face.

It indicates communication. It indicates fellowship. The Word was eternally face to face in fellowship with God. And then the third clause says, The Word was God. Now, the society's contentions have revolved on the fact that this word theos does not have what is called an article.

An article in Greek would appear such as right here, ha. Lagas has the article in each phrase. Right here, right here, and right here. Theon has the article right here, ton, ton theon. But here theos does not have an article, which in English would be the.

And so they say this makes it indefinite and hence should be translated a god. Now, this is not the case. Instead, what you have here, this phrase, is called a copulative phrase. And I know I'm taking you back to the good old days of grammar in English class.

But it's very important. The subject of the sentence is the Word. You could not translate it, God is the Word. You could not translate it that way because when you have a sentence like this, that little mark right there, the article, points out what the subject of the sentence is.

So it is the Word was, and we have theos. Now, if theos had an article, if theos had an article, then you could translate it either God was the Word or the Word was God, either one. It would be interchangeable.

And what it would say was, all of God was the Word and all of the Word is God. They are identical things. Now, if John had said that, what he would be saying is, the Word is all of God. God and the Word are the same person.

That is an ancient heresy known as Sabellianism or Modalism. Teaching that there is no Trinity, there is no three persons, but the Father is the Son, the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the Father, and so on and so forth.

That is not the case. And so here, what could John have done? If he had put the article in, he would have basically been teaching heresy, which he did not do. Why then did he write it in this way? Basically, this is called a predicate nominative.

When the predicate nominative precedes the verb and does not have the article, it takes on a characterizing effect. Kenneth Wiest, in his expanded translation, brings this out when he says, the Word was as to his nature absolute deity.

John's point is that, though you can differentiate between the Word and God, the Word's nature is the same nature as God's. In fact, one translation translates it, what God was, the Word was. John is not attempting to say that Jesus is the Father, that Jesus is Théon.

He is saying as Lagos, Jesus' nature is the same as the Father's. They both share the one essence, the one being that is God. A translation of a God is false and misleading. It does not do justice to the context of the language in any way, shape, or form.

It also teaches polytheism. For this would teach that you have a big God, Jehovah, and a little God, Jesus. Now, Jesus said there is only one true God. And hence, if big God Jehovah is the one true God, then that makes Jesus a false God.

Obviously, that is not the case from John's viewpoint. If a student, for example, in one of my Greek classes that I teach at church, were to translate this phrase and put, and the Word was a God, I would have to mark it wrong.

Because it is just simply against the rules of Greek grammar. And so we have here an example of a mistranslation at this point. The extent to which the society has gone in an attempt to defend this is beyond the realm of our research this evening.

Though it is fascinating to see how many times true scholars have been quoted out of context. Falsehoods have been produced. We have even gone so far as to find out that the society utilized translation by a spirit medium by the name of Johannes Grieber.

Who also translated this, the Word was a God. But he got his translation from the spirit world. Which should say something about the seriousness of what we are dealing with here. So John 1 .1 is a major mistranslation.

You say, how am I going to explain that to a witness, friend, or relative of mine? I can't spew back all that copulative sentence material. Well, let's look at a few things here. In the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, 282 times the word theos appears without an article.

And if that rule that the society has seemingly made up about John 1 .1 holds true, then 282 times we should find them translating it a God. However, you will find out that only 16 times they translate it that way.

In other words, they break their own rule 94 of the time. They are inconsistent to their own rule 94 of the time. For example, in verse 6 of John 1 we have theu. And some might go, well see that's a different word.

It is not. Theu is just simply the genitive-adjective form of theos. And the society itself has admitted that. Theu has no article, and yet look how they translate it in verse 6. There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God, with a capital G.

If they were consistent, they would have to translate it a God. But they did not. There are numerous other examples. In 2 Corinthians 5 .19 you have theos appearing without an article. It is translated in the NWT as capital G, God.

This happens over and over and over again. Also, do not be taken in by a very common witness ploy of taking you to Acts 28 .6. Where Paul is bitten by a serpent. And they say, see look right here, they said that they thought him to be a God.

The problem is, the construction in Acts 28 .6 is not in any way parallel to what we have in John 1 .1. And without going into a lot of detail, there is a passage in your KILT there that is exactly parallel to John 1 .1.

Which you can show a witness and demonstrate how the NWT correctly translates the other passage while mistranslating John 1 .1. Let's take a look at that. It is Mark 2 .28. Mark 2 .28 is a parallel construction to what we have right here.

In other words, we have a noun preceding the verb without an article. According to the society, it should be translated indefinitely. Let's look at Mark 2 .28. Hence, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.

Now if you look at your Greek, you will see HOSTE KOURIAS. Notice KOURIAS. KOURIAS is a nominative. It is before the verb ESTIN. And if the society's contentions are right, and if they stuck to their own rule, you would have to translate this.

Hence, the Son of Man is a Lord even of the Sabbath. But they do not, because that would be patently absurd, obviously. And yet, why do it in John 1 .1? I'd have to say it's because of a theological bias against the deity of Christ, obviously.

And I think that has been substantiated over the past 36 years in the fact that numerous scholars have written articles showing the fact that John 1 .1 has been mistranslated in the NWT, and yet they try to stick to the translation.

Only a person who has a point to prove is going to do that when faced with true scholarship against their position. So John 1 .1 is a mistranslation and can be demonstrated as such from the text. Let's look at another one that has caused a lot of raised eyebrows in the scholarly community, is John 8 .58.

John 8 .58. Now, this evening I handed out to you, and those people who are listening by tape do not have benefit of this, but I will ascribe to you, it is a photocopied sheet giving the footnote from the New World Translation from 1951, 1969, and 1984 at John 8 .58.

You will notice that it has changed numerous times. In 1951, the New World Translation had as a footnote, I have been, ego I me, after the aorist infinitive clause, prinabrem genestai, and hence properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense.

It is not the same as haon, meaning the being or the I am, X is 314, and LXX means the septuagint. Now, it was immediately pointed out by Christian scholars world around that there was no such thing as a perfect indefinite tense in Greek.

The witnesses were just about as quickly to respond that they didn't mean in Greek, even though that's obviously how it seems to have been written. They meant in English, and there is a perfect indefinite tense in English.

However, it was dropped very quickly, because, of course, they could provide no evidence for what they were saying. And so, you'll notice that in the 1969 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, all the way up until just last year, this second note was put in, which says, I have been, ego I me, after the aorist infinitive clause, prinabrem genestai, and hence properly rendered in the perfect tense.

It is not the same as haon, meaning the being or the I am, X is 314, and the septuagint. Now, this has been changed. In the 1985, I know I put 84 down there, the 1985 Kingdom Interlinear Translation, notice something has disappeared.

It now says, I have been, ego I me, the action expressed by this verb began in the past, is still in progress, and is properly translated by the perfect indicative. Well, they're getting closer. But the problem is, they're missing the entire point of the passage.

Many times, context is a guiding light to translation. Let's look at what was going on in John chapter 8. Jesus is talking to the Jews, and he's told them in John 8, 24, unless you believe that ego I me, I am, you shall die in your sins.

He wasn't pulling any punches here. And he comes to 8 .58 and says, before Abraham came into existence, or came into being, I am. Notice what happens in verse 59, therefore, they picked up stones to hurl them at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple.

Now, the Jews took great offense at Jesus' use of ego I me. There are some real reasons for this. Ego I me is used both in Deuteronomy and Isaiah, as a euphemism, another terminology for Yahweh God. This is used, for example, in Isaiah 43 .10, where Jehovah's Witnesses even get their name, in the Septuagint translation.

And the Jews understood what Jesus was saying. The Jews comprehended that he was claiming to be their God, and they accused him of blasphemy, and picked up stones to hurl at him. They only had two reasons to stone you, either blasphemy or adultery.

And obviously, his saying, before Abraham was, I am, was not adultery. They considered it to be blasphemy. And so, society has missed this point, and I personally believe, to hide the obvious claim by Jesus at this point, they have mistranslated a simple, present indicative active, Ego I me, as I have been, instead of I am.

Now, it is true, that obviously, it means that in the past, he was. That's true. I mean, here is a comparison between Abraham, and notice the verb there, genestai. It's genemi again. The exact same comparison, that John was making way back in John 1, is continuing here in John chapter 8.

Abraham came into existence at one point. Jesus, present indicative, continuous action, has always been. Ego I me. The same comparison is made, in the Septuagint translation of Psalm 90 verse 2. Where before the mountains were brought forth, wherever thou hast formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

The mountains came into existence. God has always been. It's the same comparison, in the Greek of Psalm 90 verse 2, in the Septuagint, as we have here in John chapter 8 verse 58. The Jews knew all of this.

And so, the best translation, of course, is I am. I have been is contained in the meaning. Certainly, in the past, yes. But the translation is I am, and I have to figure, that the reason we've stuck with I have been, in the society, for the past 36 years, is mainly to hide a point.

On the bottom of the page here, I have, from a beginning grammar of the Greek New Testament, by William Hersey Davis, section 458, John 8 verse 58, comes up as an example. And he says, is frequently used with the infinitive.

For example, before Abraham came into being,.

I am.

William Hersey Davis studied under the greatest American Greek scholar who has ever lived, Dr. A .T. Robertson. And William Hersey Davis was a colleague of his. And so, you can't get a much greater authority than William Hersey Davis or A .T. Robertson at this point.

So, John 8 verse 58 has figured rather largely in this discussion. Acts chapter 10 verse 36, we'll pick up the pace a little bit here. Acts chapter 10 verse 36. Acts chapter 10 verse 36 says that, He sent out the word of the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, this one is the Lord of all others.

The society has a penchant for adding the word other into the scriptures. The word other is nowhere in the Greek text, as you can see. Only a theological bias causes it to be added where it is at this point.

We will see numerous other examples of this. 2 Corinthians chapter 13. 2 Corinthians, very last verse of the letter,.

Says,.

The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the Holy Spirit be with all of you. You might say, so what? Well, when you read it in the Greek, you'll notice that what we have here is a Trinitarian passage.

We have reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, to the Father God, and to the Holy Spirit.

And yet,.

Even though the construction is identical, of the Lord Jesus Christ, of God, and it should be of the Holy Spirit, the society has broken up this triune passage and translated a simple genitive as a locative, and said, in the Holy Spirit.

Now, any first year Greek student would recognize that this is a genitive form and yet they're translating it as a locative with really no reason at all, especially due to the fact that it's obviously parallel with of the Lord Jesus Christ and of God.

Above.

And I think, again, the reason revolves around theological differences. Society doesn't believe in the Trinity. The thing that worries me is you need to come to the Scriptures and derive your theology from the Scriptures rather than taking your theology and impressing them upon the Scriptures themselves and changing the Scriptures to fit your theology.

And yet, we see this happening over and over again. Look at Philippians chapter 1. Philippians came in for a lot of this for some reason. I'm not sure why, but Philippians contains a high number of questionable translations.

Philippians chapter 1, verse 23 is an example.

Paul says,.

I'm under pressure from these two things, but what I do desire is the releasing and the being with Christ, for this to be sure, is far better.

Now,.

The word is onalusi, which is an infinitive and simply means. Paul is saying, I wish to be released. I wish to be released.

Now,.

If you'll look at the appendix that the society provides concerning this, what they try to say is that Paul was talking about something way down the road someplace. When, in fact, what Paul is talking about here is, I want.

To go home and be with the Lord.

I want to be in the Lord's presence, but why would the society have any problem with that? Well, if you know what the society teaches concerning that, they do not teach a conscious existence in the afterlife.

You are literally recreated.

By God.

At the time of the resurrection. Instead of Paul saying, I want to be released and to be with the Lord, we have a different translation which would make that a little bit harder to see. Philippians 2 .9.

Philippians 2 .9 gives us another example of the word other being inserted into the text. For this very reason also, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.

Now, the.

1985 edition.

Of the Kingdom and Millennium Translation has the word other in brackets. It did not in the 1969 edition. The 1969 edition, the purple people leader, as we called it, that word other is not in brackets.

They have now decided to bracket it mainly due to the fact that what Philippians 2 .9 says is that his name is above every name. Now, you can understand why we put the word other in there from the witness'.

Viewpoint.

Every name but the name Jehovah, of course. What they don't realize is that Jesus is Jehovah. Jesus is identified as Jehovah over and over and over and over again in the scriptures. This is not seen in the NWT.

Philippians 3 .11. Philippians 3 .11.

Gives us.

Another example where a doctrine of the society is smuggled into a translation. Philippians 3 .11.

Says,.

"...to see if I may by any means attain to the earlier resurrection from the dead.". The Greek term is ex-anastasin. Ex-anastasin does not mean earlier resurrection. It just simply means a resurrection out of.

It is the Greek term anastasis, resurrection, and ex, out of. It has nothing to do with earlier whatsoever. Why is this translated this way? Well, as you understand witness doctrine, you can see why it is translated in this way.

And again, it is a doctrinal consideration. More tampering with the text can be seen, and it is one of the most obvious, obvious passages. It is Colossians chapter 1. Colossians chapter.

1.

Verses 16 through 17 in the NWT.

Reads,.

"...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.". Now, notice the word other is in brackets. It originally was not.

If you will look at the 1950 or the 1951 NWT, the word other was just put right into the text, no brackets whatsoever. Such an outcry was raised concerning this that obviously, very quickly, the society inserted the brackets, but they didn't take the word out.

Now, why has this word been put in there? Well, obviously, if Jesus Christ created all things, ta ponta is the Greek term, and it means all things. If he created all things, then he's the creator, not a creation.

If I.

Create all things, then I'm not a creation. But if I'm a creation, then I have to say I created all other things and exclude myself from that category. However, the society has realized this, and to take away the clear indication of the fact that Jesus Christ created all things, he is before all things, and by his very power, all things hold together, the word other has been inserted.

Other groups have taken different tracks. For example, the Wayner National, Victor Paul Werewolf's group, who also deny the deity.

Of Christ,.

Take a much less scholarly approach, or I should say, not that this is scholarly, but a much less likely approach, by saying verses 16 and 17 are an excursus that are in reference to the Father, not the Son.

Sort of like in parentheses or something along those lines. Every group has to do something with the fact that Jesus Christ, according to Colossians 1, 16 through 17, is the creator, not a creation. It's a very, very important distinction.

Colossians, Deity, and the Background of Gnosticism

The next passage to look at is Colossians chapter 2, verse 9. Colossians 2, 9. An extremely important verse in presenting the deity of Christ to anyone, obviously, but Colossians 2, 9 says in the New World Translation, because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.

Now, the Greek phrase is Hati in auto katoikai pan ta pleiroma teis theate tasomatikos, because in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form. The word theate tas means deity. Now notice, in the 85 Kingdom Interlinear Translation, there's been a change.

In the 1969 Purple People Leader, it read godhead, godship, godship. Now it's been changed to divinity, which is, in actuality, a weaker form. It is a step in the wrong direction. Now, you will find, however, divinity in various lexicons as a meaning.

But to the witness, divinity means not deity. They have a complete difference between divinity and deity. Theate tas means that which makes God, God. The very essence of being of God. It's a very strong term.

In fact, it's the only time it's used in the New Testament at all. And it's in reference to Jesus Christ. Divinity to a witness is something much less. You will never find in any lexicon the meaning divine quality for theate tas.

That is a mistranslation to hide the fact that Colossians 2 .9 teaches very clearly that Jesus Christ is in the state of being God, deity. That's from Thayer's Greek lexicon. B .B. Warfield defined it as that which makes God God.

It's a very strong, very clear term that unfortunately if I were to read this as my regular translation, and how many witnesses do you know that do that? This is the only translation they read on a regular basis.