The Beauty of the New World Translation Bible

 

The following is from the early 2000s and is in regards to the classic New World Translation Reference Bible 1984

Question from a reader: The Bible is filled with beautiful literature, even atheists can admire its poise and gracefulness. The Psalms overflow with the exhortations to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. It seems the NWT has taken the beauty out of the Bible, and even the word itself.

Reply: If you want beauty, then read the Revised English Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible, if you want word study, then choose the NWT.

"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the Bible who are trying to appreciate to learn *the Hebrew or Greek* languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 'gloss' translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, Bible Translations and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie [emphasis his]

"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages. we suggest either a very literal version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version [Kingdom {Interlinear Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, Duthie

For instance, in Judges 14:3, most Bibles will remove the references to "eyes." The Hebrew Interlinear (Jay P. Green) reads, "for she is pleasing in my eyes."

But what do most Bibles say?

"for she pleaseth me well" ASV, KJV

"pleases me very much" LITV

"she is the one that suits me" Smith & Goodspeed

"she looks good to me" NASB

If you have the NASB Study Bible, it gives the literal rendering in the margin...and it reads exactly like it is in the NWT, and THAT is the value of having the New World Translation. 

James Ussher and His Chronology on This Day in History

 

This Day in History: Today is the date of the creation of the world, according to Archbishop James Ussher. If you have an old King James Bible with annotations you may already have Ussher's Biblical chronology, which at Genesis 1 has the creation of the world set at October 23, 4004 B.C., at 9am. While this date came under fire in later centuries, the fantasy novel Good Omens humorously stated that he was only "off by a quarter of an hour." Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould came to Ussher's defense, not for being correct, but for it being "an honorable effort for its time." Isaac Newton put the year of creation at 4000 B.C., Kepler chose 3977 B.C. and Martin Luther insisted it was 3961 B.C.

"Ussher's chronology represented a considerable feat of scholarship: it demanded great depth of learning in what was then known of ancient history, including the rise of the Persians, Greeks and Romans, as well as expertise in the Bible, biblical languages, astronomy, ancient calendars and chronology. Ussher's account of historical events for which he had multiple sources other than the Bible is usually in close agreement with modern accounts – for example, he placed the death of Alexander in 323 BC and that of Julius Caesar in 44 BC." Source

Ussher determined that the creation of the world happened EXACTLY 4000 years before Christ's birth. Sixth-century monk Dionysius Exiguus established the current Anno Domini dating which gives us the year that Christ was born. Hence, the year 2021 is 2021 years after Christ was born. However, this date had to be later changed to 4 BC because the Bible states that Jesus was an infant during the reign of King Herod, and Herod died in 4 BC (Before Christ). So, 4000 years before Christ was 4004 BC. 

Interestingly, according to Ussher's chronology, 6000 years ended on October 23, 1997 (keep in mind that there is no year 0). Also, the concept of 0 didn't exist in Exiguus' time.

See also Aquinas, Augustine and the Illusion of Time
https://thebookshelf2015.blogspot.com/2017/11/aquinas-augustine-and-illusion-of-time.html

See also 215 Books on Christian and Bible Theology on DVDrom 

Read Ussher's Annals of the World Online

The Pathway and the New World Translation

 

Buy: And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 on Amazon for only 99 cents

The Pathway has an article entitled "Four examples of where the New World Translation gets it wrong."

They start off like most such articles attacking the NWT rendering of John 1:1c as "the Word was a god." The only argument they put forward to "debunk" this rendering is a quote by Charles L. Feinberg, “I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”

That's strange because when it comes to similar constructions (pre-verbal Predicate Nominative (PN), Greek scholars do indeed add the indefinite article.

For example:

John 4:19 has PROFHTHS EI SU which translates to: "you are a prophet."

John 6:70 has DIABOLOS ESTIN which translates to: "is a slanderer."

John 8:34 has DOULOS ESTIN which translates to: "is a slave."

John 8:44 has ANQRWPOKTONOS HN which translates to "a murderer."

John 8:44 has EUSTHS ESTIN which translates to "he is a liar."

John 8:48 has SAMARITHS EI SU which translates to "you are a Samaritan."

John 9:8 has PROSAITHS HN which translates to "as a beggar."

John 9:17 has PROFTHS ESTIN which translates to "He is a prophet."

John 9:24 has hAMARTWLOS ESTIN which translates to "is a sinner."

John 9:25 has hAMARTWLOS ESTIN which translates to "he is a sinner."

John 10:1 has KLEPTHS ESTIN which translates to "is a thief"

John 10:13 has MISQWTOS ESTIN which translates to "a hired hand."

John 12:6 has KLEPTHS HN which translates to "he was a thief."

John 18:35 has MHTI EGO IOUDAIOS EIMI which translates to "I am not a Jew, am I?"

John 18:37 has BASILEUS EI SU which translates to "So you are a king?"

John 18:37 also has BASILEUS EIMI EGW which translates to "I am a king."

Notice the indefinite article "a" is inserted here in most Bibles, in all of these examples, even though the Greek does not have an indefinite article.

It had to be added because the English, and common sense (just as at John 1:1) demands it.

J. W. Wenham, in The Elements of New Testament Greek, writes: “As far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed theos estin ho logos, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’. The interpretation of John 1.1 will depend upon whether the writer is held to believe in only one God or in more than one god.” Thus, theology rather than grammar is the stated reason for preferring ‘The Word was God.'”

Exactly...and that is the only reason Charles L. Feinberg insists on the lamestream rendering of John 1:1c. Feinberg went to the Dallas Theological Seminary whose Doctrinal Statement is:

"While our faculty and board annually affirm their agreement with the full doctrinal statement (below), students need only agree with these seven essentials:

1. the Trinity

2. the full deity and humanity of Christ the spiritual lostness of the human race the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ salvation by faith alone in Christ alone the physical return of Christ the authority and inerrancy of Scripture."

So, Feinberg is not allowed to think outside the trinitarian box, and any scholar that renders John 1:1c differently from the trinitarian way is not a "reputable" scholar in his limited opinion.

The website next attacks how the NWT Bible translates John 8:58, "Jesus said to them: 'Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.'" They write, "Here, Jesus harks back to Exodus 3 where God reveals Himself to Moses in the burning bush as I AM, or YHWH, a unique name Jesus applies to Himself..."

There is a big problem here, as Exodus 3 says much more than just I AM. In the Greek Septuagint, the Greek has "I am The Being." The "I am' is simply used to identify THE BEING. The silliness of focusing on the "I am" is akin to me saying "here is the President" and then having everyone settling their attention on the words "here is."

Things get worse for their argument when you turn to the Hebrew. The same Hebrew word (1961) is used 2 scriptures apart (right beside the 12 and the 14), but it is translated differently in v.14, in order to prop Jesus' claim to Jehovahhood.

I have a blog-page that just looks at the many occurrences of the Hebrew word in question here.

The Pathway then quotes John 8:58 from the NASB (New American Standard Bible. They obviously didn't know that the 1960, 1973 NASB also has "I have been" as a variant reading in the margin for John 8:58.

It should be noted that many Bibles translate John 8:58 similarly to the NWT.

The Pathway website next moves on to Acts 20:28 where the New World Translations reads, "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." 

The Pathway doesn't like that the NWT has added the word "Son" at the end of the Scripture, and translating thusly is done so to deny the deity of Christ. However, the Bible I used here is actually the Revised Standard Version (RSV), not the NWT. I am not aware of too many Arians on the RSV translation committee. The RSV is not alone in translating Acts 20:28 in this way. See also the New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible, Contemporary English Version etc.

Zondervan's NIV Study Bible has "Lit. 'the blood of his own one,' a term of endearment (such as 'his own dear one.' referring to his own Son)." See also Zondervan's KJV, and NASB Study Bible.

The Greek word IDIOS, especially when it is articular (see below), demands that a noun follows, whether stated, or implied. If not stated in the Greek, it is required in the English translation to fill the meaning.

In my list below I ask the reader to take note that IDIOS precedes the noun, whether in Greek, or in the translation English.

The word "own" here creates an expectation of a contrast, as in "his own language" (THi IDIAi DIALEKTWi, Acts 1:19, 2:6, 2:8) which is contrasted to someone else's language, or as in THi IDIAi EXOUSIAi, Acts 1:7, or IDIAi DUNAMEI, Acts 3:12, or IDIAi GENEAi, Acts 13:36, or PERI THS IDIAIS DEISIDAIMONIAS, Acts 25:19. If such a contrast is present, the normal, expected order is for IDIOS to precede its noun. This is what my list of comparable Scriptures using IDIOS will show:

Matthew 9:1 his own city.

Matthew 22:5 his own farm

Matthew 25:14 his own servants

Luke 2:3 his own city (Textus Receptus)

Luke 6:41 thine own eye

Luke 6:44 his own fruit

Luke 10:34 his own beast

John 1:11 unto his own [CEV adds the word "world"; TEV adds the word "country"; God's Word and NJB adds the word "people"; RSV adds the word "home"; NLT adds the word "land"]

John 1:41 his own brother [Textus Receptus]

John 4:44 his own country

John 5:18 his own Father

John 5:43 his own name

John 7:18 his own glory

John 8:44 he speaketh of his own [NRSV, RSV, HCSB, NASB, NET, NJB adds the word "nature"; EMTV, NKJV adds the word "resources"; ESV, NLT adds the word "character" NIV adds "native language"; Weymouth adds the word "store."]

John 10:3 his own sheep

John 10:4 all his own [KJV, CEV, Diaglott, EMTV, God's Word, LITV, MKJV, NET, NKJV, WEB and Weymouth adds the word "sheep"]

John 10:12 own the sheep

John 13:1 having loved his own [CEV adds the word "followers"; NLT adds the word "disciples"]

John 15:19 the world would love its own [Weymouth adds the word "property"; God's Word writes "one of its own"]

John 16:32 each one to his own [CEV, HCSB, ESV, TEV, NASB, NET, NIV, NRSV, RSV, Weymouth, Beck, C.B. Williams adds the word "home"; LITV, MKJV adds the word "things"; NJB, NLT adds the word "way"]

John 19:27 took her unto his own [KJV, CEV, HCSB, Darby, ESV, TEV, God's Word, LITV, MKJV, NET, NJB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, RSV, NRSV, WEB, Weymouth, Williams, Beck adds the word "home"]

Acts 1:7 his own power

Acts 1:25 his own place

Acts 2:6 his own language

Acts 2:8 his own language

Acts 3:12 our own power

Acts 4:23 went to their own [KJV, Darby, MKJV, WEB adds the word "company"; HCSB adds thw word "fellowship"; ESV and Diaglott adds the word "friends"; NASB adds the word "companions" etc]

Acts 4:32 which he possessed was his own [Message has "claim ownership of their own possessions" NRSV has "claimed private ownership of any possessions"] ANARTHROUS

Acts 13:36 his own generation

Acts 25:19 their own religion

Acts 28:30 in his own hired apartment

Romans 8:32 his own Son [Textus Receptus]

Romans 10:3 to establish their own [Nestle] [Textus Receptus, HCSB, Darby, NET, Weymouth adds the word "righteousness"; NLT adds "way of getting right with God"; Good News Bible adds the word "way"]

Romans 11:24 their own olive tree

Romans 14:4 his own lord

Romans 14:5 his own mind

1 Corinthians 3:8 his own reward

1 Corinthians 3:8 his own labor

1 Corinthians 4:12 our own hands

1 Corinthians 6:18 his own body

1 Corinthians 7:2 her own husband

1 Corinthians 7:4 her own body

1 Corinthians 7:4 his own body

1 Corinthians 7:7 his own gift

1 Corinthians 7:37 his own will

1 Corinthians 9:7 at his own wages

1 Corinthians 11:21 his own supper

1 Corinthians 14:35 their own husbands

1 Corinthians 15:23 his own order

1 Corinthians 15:38 his own body

Galatians 6:5 his own burden

Ephesians 5:22 to their own husbands

Ephesians 5:24 their own husbands

Colossians 3:18 their own husbands [Textus Receptus]

1 Thessalonians 2:14 your own countrymen

1 Thessalonians 2:15 their own prophets [Textus Receptus]

1 Thessalonians 4:11 your own business

1 Timothy 3:4 his own household

1 Timothy 3:5 his own household

1 Timothy 3:12 their own households

1 Timothy 4:2 their own conscience

1 Timothy 5:4 their own household

1 Timothy 5:8 his own people

1 Timothy 6:1 their own masters

2 Timothy 1:9 his own purpose

2 Timothy 4:3 their own lusts

Titus 2:5 their own husbands

Titus 2:9 their own masters (ANARTHROUS)

Hebrews 4:10 his own the God did [Lattimore, Simple English Bible, NET, CEV, New Life NT, NiRV, International English Bible adds the word "works"; The Power NT adds the word "labors."]

Hebrews 7:27 his own sins

Hebrews 9:12 his own blood

Hebrews 13:12 his own blood

James 1:14 his own lusts

1 Peter 3:1 your own husbands

1 Peter 3:5 their own husbands

2 Peter 2:16 his own transgression

2 Peter 2:22 his own vomit

2 Peter 3:3 their own lusts

2 Peter 3:16 their own destruction

2 Peter 3:17 your own stedfastness

Jude 6 their own habitation

"This absolute use of hO IDIOS is found in the Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that 'his Own' (hO IDIOS) was a title that early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to 'the Beloved' (hO AGAPHTOS); compare Ro 8:32, where Paul refers to God 'who did not spare TOU IDIOU hUIOU' in a context that clearly alludes to Gn 22:16, where the Septuagint has TOU AGAPHTOU hUIOU." A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament p. 426. This same page refers to Hort, who believed that "hUIOU [Son] may have dropped out after TOU IDIOU. Also, "On the supposition that the text is incorrupt, such a force would be given by the sense 'through the blood that was His own', i.e. as being His Son's. This conception of the death of Christ as a price paid by the Father is in strict accordance with St Paul's own language elsewhere (Ro v 8; viii 32)." [The New Testament in the original Greek, the text revised by B.F. Westcott (Notes on Select Readings)]

What does this mean for Acts 20:28? Following the practice in the Greek and the English translations that endeavor to bring out the full meaning from the Greek, the best rendering of Acts 20:28 from the "church of God" critical text tradition is as follows:

"Be shepherds of the church of God, which he acquired by means of his own Son's death." Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, Vol. 1, p. 565

When considering the above, you will realize why many Bible versions have translated similarly to the NWT.

Next, the Pathway complains of how the NWT renders Colossians 1:16, “Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist.” The objection lies in the addition of the word OTHER. 

The Revised Standard Version inserts the word "other" 100 times, the King James Version, 67 times, and the New Revised Standard Version New Testament 31 times. Here are some examples:

Luke 21:29

"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)

"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News Bible (TEV)

"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American Bible(NAB)

Luke 11:42

"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)

"and all the other herbs." TEV

"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version

In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets? "A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Christian Literature" by F. Blass and A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".

Let's take a look at the book of Sirach. Sirach 49:16 says that "Adam was above every living thing in the creation." However, Adam is also a living thing, hence, other Bibles have added the word OTHER here, such as the NRSV and the Good News Bible. Sirach 1:4 states that "Wisdom was created before all things." Here Wisdom is presented as "created" and yet distinct from other created things. That is why many Bibles, again, add the word OTHER here, such as the NRSV and the New Catholic Bible. Some Bibles add the word ELSE: "Wisdom was created before everything else." (Common English Bible) 

Let us take a look at 1 Corinthians 6:18: "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." ASV.

The RSV, NIV, NJB, Smith & Goodspeed have "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."

So, as we see, OTHER is a legitimate addition to the word ALL (PAS/PANTA) in the Greek Bible.

Why don't critics of the New World Translation speak the same way about the NIV, NKJV, NET Bible, etc. regarding the insertion of the word "over" in Col. 1:15?. "The firstborn 'over' all creation". Is the word "over" in the Greek text here? None of my Interlinear Bibles say "over" at this text. Doesn't that totally change the meaning of the text? Is anyone complaining about this? No!

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents.

See a local listing for it here

Philosopher David Hume on the Absurdity in Religion

 

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

From Essays and Treaties on Several Subjects by David Hume 1793

...where theism forms the fundamental principle of any popular religion, that tenet is so conformable to sound reason, that philosophy is apt to incorporate itself with such a system of theology. And if the other dogmas of that system be contained in a sacred book, such as the Koran, or be determined by any visible authority, like that of the Roman pontif, speculative reasoners naturally carry on their assent, and embrace a theory which has been instilled into them by their earliest education, and which also possesses some degree of consistence and uniformity. But as these appearances are sure, all of them, to prove deceitful, philosophy will soon find herself very unequally yoked with her new associate; and instead of regulating each principle, as they advance together, she is at every turn perverted to serve the purposes of superstition. For besides the unavoidable incoherences which must be reconciled and adjusted, one may safely affirm that all popular theology, especially the scholastic, has a kind of appetite for absurdity and contradiction. If that theology went not beyond reason and common sense, her doctrines would appear too easy and familiar. Amazement must of necessity be raised; mystery affected; darkness and obscurity sought after; and a foundation of merit afforded the devout votaries, who desire an opportunity of subduing their rebellious reason, by the belief of the most unintelligible sophisms.

Ecclesiastical history sufficiently confirms these reflexions. When a controversy is started, some people pretend always with certainty to foretell the issue. Whichever opinion, say they, is most contrary to plain sense is sure to prevail, even where the general interest of the system requires not that decision. Though the reproach of heresy may for some time be bandied about among the disputants, it always rests at last on the side of reason. Any one, it is pretended, that has but learning enough of this kind to know the definition of Arian, Pelagian, Erastian, Socinian, Sabellian, Eutychian, Nestorian, Monothelite, etc., not to mention Protestant, whose fate is yet uncertain, will be convinced of the truth of this observation. It is thus a system becomes more absurd in the end, merely from its being reasonable and philosophical in the beginning.

To oppose the torrent of scholastic religion by such feeble maxims as these: that “it is impossible for the same to be and not to be”, that “the whole is greater than a part”, that “two and three make five”, is pretending to stop the ocean with a bull-rush. Will you set up profane reason against sacred mystery? No punishment is great enough for your impiety. And the same fires which were kindled for heretics will serve also for the destruction of philosophers.

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing.

"Verily I say to thee to-day, that with me thou shalt be in the Eden's garden"

 

From: Good Tidings Pertaining to the Earth and the Race as Disclosed in the Scriptures 1871

 If our readers will observe the common use of language, they will notice that all classes of persons frequently use to-day, to-night, this day, and this night, in the same sense that to-day is used in the text, provided it qualifies say. Some may object, by saying that thus arranged, to-day would be superfluous; but no more so than in many cases in the Bible. The Lord instructs Moses to say to the children of Israel, “I command thee this day.” “I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish.” Deut. 30: 11, 18. He does not mean that they shall perish that day, but makes the denunciation that day; which fact was perfectly apparent without stating it, but it is a common mode of expression. Again, the Lord says in Deut. 15: 15, “I command thee this thing to-day.” Here, to-day is used in the same sense as in Luke 23: 43,-“verily I say unto thee to-day, shalt thou be with me in paradise.” If the phrase, to-day, is superfluous in Luke 23:43, if made to qualify say, it is equally so in Deut. 15: 15. Mr. Webster, in one of his speeches said, “I speak to-day for the preservation of the Union.” All knew he was speaking that day, without his declaring the fact. Mr. Choate, on one occasion, spoke in the same style. These distinguished orators used to-day in the same sense as it is used in Luke 23:43, when the comma is placed after to-day. An intelligent minister said, "I expect to-night, to get into the kingdom.” Of course it was not understood that he expected to be in the kingdom before morning, but that he spoke of his present expectations. Similar expressions are very common. 

Again, if it could be proved that the thief went to heaven or paradise the day of the crucifixion, it was forty-three days before the Saviour ascended. The Saviour says, “thou shalt be with me in paradise.” Three days subsequent to this, after the Saviour had risen from the dead, he said to Mary, “touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my father.” He remained on earth forty days longer, and then ascended to Heaven.

4. The adverb seemeron, rendered "to-day," occurs in the Septuagint scriptures of the Old Testament, and in the Greek of the New Testament, two hundred and fifty-nine times. It is used adjectively twenty-four times, and without a verb to qualify fourteen times. It precedes the verb it qualifies fifty-one times, and one hundred and seventy times it follows the verb it qualifies; so that there are one hundred and seventy instances to fifty-one, in favor of putting the comma after to-day in this case. From a very ancient manuscript of the Syriac, written, as supposed, about the fifth century, the following rendering occurs: "Verily I say to thee to-day, that with me thou shalt be in the Eden's garden.”

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

From the Literal Idiomatic Translation:

"And (kai) he enunciated (eipen) to him (autō), 'Truly (amēn) I say (legō) to you (soi) today (sēmeron), you shall cause yourself to be (esē) with (met’) me (emou) in (en) the (tō) paradise (paradeisō)!'"

See also The Eonian Life Bible New Testament and The One God, the Father, One Man Messiah Translation and Rotherham's Bible and The Kingdom of God Version New Testament by Raymond Faircloth and the New European Version Bible and the Concordant Literal Version and the 2001Translation and the Revised Version Improved and Corrected and the Twenty First Century New Testament and the New World Translation and the Updated American Standard Version.

The Execution of Bible Translator William Tyndale on This Day in History

 

https://amzn.to/3iBcnSb

[The English Bible---the most familiar book in our language---is the product of a man who was exiled, vilified, betrayed, then strangled, then burnt.]

This Day in History: Reformation Bible translator William Tyndale was burned at the stake on this day in 1536. Tyndale's work in Bible translation was so effective that Bible versions today work on a foundation that he started. One study found that Tyndale's words account for 84% of the New Testament and for 75.8% of the Old Testament in the King James Bible.

As well as individual words, Tyndale also coined such familiar phrases as:

fall flat on his face

go the extra mile

my brother's keeper

knock and it shall be opened unto you

a moment in time

fashion not yourselves to the world

seek and ye shall find

ask and it shall be given you

judge not that ye be not judged

the word of God which liveth and lasteth forever

let there be light

the powers that be

the salt of the earth

a law unto themselves

it came to pass

the signs of the times

filthy lucre

the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak  

There were words that Tyndale used in his Bible that the Church in his day disapproved of. Words such as "overseer", instead of "bishop", "elder" for "priest", and "love" rather than "charity". Tyndale, citing Erasmus, contended that the Greek New Testament did not support the traditional readings. More controversially, Tyndale translated the Greek ekklesia as "congregation" rather than "church". It has been asserted this translation choice "was a direct threat to the Church's ancient – but so Tyndale here made clear, non-scriptural – claim to be the body of Christ on earth. To change these words was to strip the Church hierarchy of its pretensions to be Christ's terrestrial representative, and to award this honour to individual worshipers who made up each congregation." ~Brian Moynahan

Tyndale's translation was also the first English Bible to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, the first English translation to take advantage of the printing press, the first of the new English Bibles of the Reformation, and the first English translation to use Jehovah ("Iehouah") as God's name.

Bible translations were also a threat to Church authorities, for it made people question church doctrines:

"Wyclif's manuscript translations of the Bible had been widely circulated from about 1380 on, and it is said that some of his followers were tinged with Antitrinitarianism; but this Bible had to be read in secret, as did Tyndale's first printed New Testament of 1525, for fear of the law. In 1535, however, the English Bible began to be accessible to all, and many were reading it for the first time. First and last the influence of this book, when read in comparison with the creeds, has underlain all others leading men to reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Some of the most notable of the early English Unitarians declared they had never read nor heard the Unitarian doctrine, but had come to it solely through reading their Bibles."~Earl Morse Wilbur

It is tempting to say that Tyndale was killed for translating the Bible into the vernacular English, but that is only partially true. Tyndale also criticized King Henry VIII’s annulment and subsequent marriage to Anne Boleyn. In the previous year, the same fate befell Thomas More for the same reason.

See also: The History of the English Bible, 125 PDF Books on DVDrom (or to download)

The Meaning of the Word Parousia, by Moses Hull

 

From The Christs of the Past and Present 1901

The second coming of Christ, of course refers to the first. Christ once came in the person of Jesus, enabling him to do good works and to say many good things, so he will come in the person of others enabling them to do wonderful works and say wonderful words.

If I have been right thus far in my expositions, the coming of Christ does not refer to the personal advent of some person, but to the presence of a power. The word “coming” generally signifies "presence,” or “manifestation.” There are several words used in the Greek Testament, which are so rendered into English as to make some who have not studied much on the matter, believe in the personal, that is, the bodily return of the man of Nazareth. No idea could be more wild or farfetched. One of the words used in this connection is the word parousia, and signifies not, "coming," but presence.

It would require more space than I have at command to refer to every place where this word occurs in the Greek Testament. It is generally wrongfully rendered "coming.” It occurs several times in Matt. xxiv, and is always rendered "coming." In verse 3, the disciples are, by our rendering, made to ask, “What shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?” What they really did ask was: “What shall be the sign of thy presence and of the end of the age?"

The same word is wrongfully rendered coming in verse 37, which says: “As the days of Noe were so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be." Verse 39 says: "And knew not until the flood came and took them all away, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be." In each of these instances the original word is parousia, and signifies, presence, not coming.

Modern Adventism has interpreted the text to signify “What shall be the sign that your coming is not very far in the future?" The fact is, they wanted to know the sign of the presence of this power, known as mediumship.

In I Cor. xv. 25, Paul says, "Those that are Christs at his coming." The word rendered at, in that instance is the Greek word en, and should be rendered in; the word rendered coming is the word parousia, and should be rendered, not "coming," but presence. The true rendering would be, “Those of the anointed in his presence.” The word parousia is rendered presence in a few places. In II Cor. x. 10, his bodily presence is weak." In that instance, it would not do to say, "his bodily coming is weak."

In Phil. ii. 12, Paul says: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence (parousia) only, but now much more in my absence (apousia) work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

It would make rather bad work to render the word parousia coming, or the word apousia going away in that instance.

In II Pet. i. 16, Peter speaks of the power and coming of our Lord. If you would read what Peter said instead of what the translators made him say, you would read as follows:

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty"