Getting it Wrong Again about the New World Translation

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

This is my response to Shane Idleman's article entitled: "My Encounter with a Knock at the Door—Who 'Really' Is Jehovah’s Witness?"

I am only going to focus on the those parts of the article that deal with the Bible and the Trinity.

The article states that the foundations of historical Christianity are: "The fact that Jesus is God and the inerrancy of the Bible."

Reply: The earliest Christians did not think Jesus was God. The fact that the deity of Christ and the Trinity had to be voted on hundreds of years later proves this point. "No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity." Thomas Jefferson

I wouldn't even say that "inerrancy of the Bible" was foundational in early Christianity. The early Christians did not have the Bible as we know it today.

The article goes on to say that "the translators (of the New World Translation) were not biblical scholars or theologians. David Reed, an ex-Witness, says that the NWT came into being in 1961 for the sole purpose of denying that Jesus is God."

Reply: Is David Reed a biblical scholar? Why should I listen to him? Saying that the NWT came into being in 1961 "for the sole purpose of denying that Jesus is God" is a statement no one should take seriously. How does the NWT translation of "Hades" where other Bibles have "Hell" deny Jesus' stature in any way?. When the NWT translates PAROUSIA as "Presence"...how does make a statement about Jesus' divinity? No, Reed's words are a ridiculous claim. Additionally, Shane presumably consumes the writings of his scholars and theologians, yet he is wrong again and again in his article. I am constantly embarrassed Biblical scholarship.

The article then goes on to mention that Charles Taze Russell "the first editor of what is now called The Watchtower" didn't know Greek. What does that have to do with anything? The New World Translation was published decades after his death. He had nothing to do with it's translation.

The article then goes on an inexplicable tangent about Greek text sources and stated that the “Received text"..."was the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches and where the KJV, NKJV, and the NASB Bibles come from."

Reply: The NASB translators would be alarmed to know that they were actually using the Textus Receptus of the King James Version instead of the Nestle-Aland Greek based on the modern critical text. Shane writes that the Bible comes from 2 sources (Byzantine and Alexandrian) whereas it is actually 4 sources: Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, and Caesarean.

The article adds: "Many major doctrines that Christians have agreed on for nearly 1900 years were changed in the New World Translation because of the influence of Russell."

Reply: Russell was hardly the first to question the consensus view of the Established Church. Most great strides in human achievement were accomplished by those who broke with consensus. Also, many in the past who dared to question the major doctrines were summarily executed. So, many of the Christians that agreed on these "major doctrines" probably did so out of fear.

Next from the article: "In the original manuscripts, John 1:1 clearly says, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' But the Bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses says 'a god,' not 'the' God."

Reply: In the original manuscripts, John 1:1 does not clearly say the above.* Notice Shane's confusion though where he writes that the NWT says “a god,” not “the” God. The "original manuscripts" do not have the definite article in the 3rd clause he is referring to, which is what is needed in order to have the translation say "the God." The clause in question is an anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominate. There are other examples of predicate nouns without an article that precede the verb in John's gospel that have treated this construction with an indefinite article, such as:

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."

This falls in line with what James Allen Hewett wrote: “Since Greek has no indefinite article, the English translation of a Greek word that does not have an article may be preceded by the indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’.”

The article adds: I could also list dozens of other Scriptures about Jesus being God that one can easily find in a Google search.

Reply: That's not even remotely correct. There is not one Scripture of the sort that does not either suffer from either ambiguity or textual corruption. "There is scarcely one text alleged by the Trinitarians which is not otherwise expounded by their own writers".—John Locke (Common Place Book)

Also from the article: They also say that the word Trinity is not in the Bible. However, this is faulty logic because the word Bible also isn’t in the Bible.

Reply: Actually, that's not true. The equivalent word "scriptures" is in the Bible, and has been translated as "Bible" by various translators such as Beck (Matt 21:42) and the Living Bible (2Tim 3:16). However, we have no equivalent for the word or concept of the Trinity. It is simply not in the Scriptures, period.

metatron3@gmail.com

*The original Greek (uncials) had something like this: ENARCHHNOLOGOSKAIOLOGOSHNPROSTONQEONKAIQEOSHNOLOGOS which word for word is: in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word.

Notice that the first mention of God here has the definite article (THE God), and the second mention does not, so as to differentiate the two. After all, the Word cannot be the same God he is with.
"There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that it's omission is not significant."~The Translator's New Testament (Emphasis Mine)

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