The New World Translation: Con Job

nomrom

Member
The New World Translation Bible: The New World Translation was released in 1961. Significantly, although the publishers claim that their translation is the work of qualified scholars, they have not revealed these scholars’ names or credentials.

It is unique in one thing – it is the first intentional, systematic effort at producing a complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group's doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society realized that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. So, rather than conforming their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs.

The New World Translation makes subtle changes in the text of the Bible to support Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. For example, it adds “a” to John 1:1 so that the text reads, “the Word was a god.” However, the correct translation of this important verse is, “The Word was God.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, "a" or "an"), so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.

There is a good reason why theos has no definite article in John 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why.

  • In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Object. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to "the dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word's function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word's root. There are two case endings for the root theo: one is -s (theos), the other is -n (theon). The -s ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the -n ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.

  • When a noun functions as a predicate nominative (in English, a noun that follows a being verb such as "is"), its case ending must match the noun's case that it renames, so that the reader will know which noun it is defining. Therefore, theo must take the -s ending because it is renaming logos. Therefore, John 1:1 transliterates to "kai theos en ho logos." Is theos the subject, or is logos? Both have the -s ending. The answer is found in the next rule.

  • In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").

The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Just three verses after John 1:1, the New World Translation translates another case of theos without the indefinite article as "God." Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.

The only translation interpreting John 1:1 in the way that Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret it is, in fact, the lone New World Translation offered by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why shouldn’t we trust the multitude of historic translations?
 

keiw

Well-known member
The New World Translation Bible: The New World Translation was released in 1961. Significantly, although the publishers claim that their translation is the work of qualified scholars, they have not revealed these scholars’ names or credentials.

It is unique in one thing – it is the first intentional, systematic effort at producing a complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group's doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society realized that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. So, rather than conforming their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs.

The New World Translation makes subtle changes in the text of the Bible to support Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. For example, it adds “a” to John 1:1 so that the text reads, “the Word was a god.” However, the correct translation of this important verse is, “The Word was God.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, "a" or "an"), so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.

There is a good reason why theos has no definite article in John 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why.

  • In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Object. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to "the dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word's function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word's root. There are two case endings for the root theo: one is -s (theos), the other is -n (theon). The -s ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the -n ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.

  • When a noun functions as a predicate nominative (in English, a noun that follows a being verb such as "is"), its case ending must match the noun's case that it renames, so that the reader will know which noun it is defining. Therefore, theo must take the -s ending because it is renaming logos. Therefore, John 1:1 transliterates to "kai theos en ho logos." Is theos the subject, or is logos? Both have the -s ending. The answer is found in the next rule.

  • In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").

The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Just three verses after John 1:1, the New World Translation translates another case of theos without the indefinite article as "God." Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.

The only translation interpreting John 1:1 in the way that Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret it is, in fact, the lone New World Translation offered by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why shouldn’t we trust the multitude of historic translations?
When one has holy spirit guidance they do not need the schools of men.
In 1822 a Greek scholar-A.Kneeland translated the NT from the same Greek lexicons all use-He compared Greek to English, side by side, to prove to the world- a god was correct. 19 other translations had a god, 3 had was divine, i had was godlike. All rejected by trinity clergy because that single truth exposes all of them as a house divided, they will not stand= false religions who fail this true mark 100%= 1 Cor 1:10= Unity of thought( all of Gods 1 truth) no division)--Tell us what don't they understand about that simple bible milk-no division?
 

imJRR

Well-known member
Try doing some real, actual, HONEST research sometime, keiw.

Kneeland was a universalist who became a pantheist and rejected Christianity.
Here is a quote from when he left universalism on his way to pantheism: “Universalists believe in Christ, which I do not; but believe that the whole story concerning him is as much a fable and fiction as that of the god Prometheus.”

Think that may have had anything to do with his "translation"?

Takes less than 5 minutes to look this up.

And you want to appeal to him as a credible scholar?

That idea is absolutely wacko.
 
Last edited:

keiw

Well-known member
Try doing some real, actual, HONEST research sometime, keiw.

Kneeland was a universalist who became a pantheist and rejected Christianity.
Here is a quote from when he left universalism on his way to pantheism: “Universalists believe in Christ, which I do not; but believe that the whole story concerning him is as much a fable and fiction as that of the god Prometheus.”

Think that may have had anything to do with his "translation"?

Takes less than 5 minutes to look this up.

And you want to appeal to him as a credible scholar?

That idea is absolutely wacko.
What he believes means 0--He was a Greek scholar who exposed the false religions by showing bible truth. They didn't like it then and they don't like it now. The only defense they had was to try to cut him down. But that doesn't remove the reality that his translating was correct. It means he was unbiased and shared fact.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
LOL! You're wrong again, as usual.

It does NOT mean that "he was unbiased and shared fact" as you ridiculously write.

The quote says he didn't believe in Christ, PERIOD.

"I believe that the whole story concerning him [Christ] is as much a fable and fiction as that of the god Prometheus.”


Any genuinely rational person understands that that disqualifies his "scholarship".
Your statement that "What he believed means 0" is not only irrational - it is 100% ANTI-rational.
In other words, it's "the usual" for one of your posts.
 
Last edited:

keiw

Well-known member
LOL! You're wrong again, as usual.

It does NOT mean that "he was unbiased and shared fact" as you ridiculously write.

The quote says he didn't believe in Christ, PERIOD.

"I believe that the whole story concerning him [Christ] is as much a fable and fiction as that of the god Prometheus.”


Any genuinely rational person understands that that disqualifies his "scholarship".
Your statement that "What he believed means 0" is not only irrational - it is 100% ANTI-rational.
In other words, it's "the usual" for one of your posts.
Why would one bother translating the NT into 2 languages side by side if they don't believe it? Sounds more like the trinity clergy's got exposed and made up lies. This is a satan ruled system( 2 Cor 4:4) lies occur--- Gods own chosen scholars in Jesus day, made up lie after lie against Jesus because truth exposed them--same pattern. The fakes who get exposed make up lies.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
LOL! The answer to your question is simple: He did so in order to promote his own personal views.

And your JW masters have done the VERY same thing with the perverted NWT.
And yes, they HAVE been exposed as fakes who make up lies.

And WOW - Have you EVER totally invalidated yourself with this:
"Gods own chosen scholars in Jesus day, made up lie after lie against Jesus"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mik

keiw

Well-known member
LOL! The answer to your question is simple: He did so in order to promote his own personal views.

And your JW masters have done the VERY same thing with the perverted NWT.
And yes, they HAVE been exposed as fakes who make up lies.

And WOW - Have you EVER totally invalidated yourself with this:
"Gods own chosen scholars in Jesus day, made up lie after lie against Jesus"
Gods scholars in Jesus day= The Pharisees, Scribes, etc--They said Jesus got his power from demons.( Matt 12:24)--The high priest said Jesus committed blasphemy-Mark 14:64--etc--These are lies against Jesus by Gods own chosen scholars.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
LOL! keiw - You are saying that the Pharisees and Scribes and such were "God's scholars".

That idea is totally and completely INSANE.
 

keiw

Well-known member
LOL! keiw - You are saying that the Pharisees and Scribes and such were "God's scholars".

That idea is totally and completely INSANE.
The Israelite religion was the only religion that was Gods chosen. All the Israelite spiritual leaders were Gods scholars. They knew the OT like the back of their hand.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
The above post is REMARKABLY ridiculous and false.

No, keiw, all the Israelite spiritual leaders were NOT "God's chosen scholars."

If they had been, they would have received and accepted Christ.

But what happened? Read Matthew chapter 2. The "scholars" didn't even bother to go to Bethlehem to see that the prophecy they quoted to Herod had come to pass.

Your post is devastatingly foolish.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mik

keiw

Well-known member
The above post is REMARKABLY ridiculous and false.

No, keiw, all the Israelite spiritual leaders were NOT "God's chosen scholars."

If they had been, they would have received and accepted Christ.

But what happened? Read Matthew chapter 2. The "scholars" didn't even bother to go to Bethlehem to see that the prophecy they quoted to Herod had come to pass.

Your post is devastatingly foolish.
Tell us then, who were Gods scholars on earth at that point? The Israelite religion was the only religion that had the true God. Yes those scholars were apostocised when Jesus came, but they knew Gods written word very well=scholars. Jesus came just for the Israelites-Its they that rejected him.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
LOL! Nope - You're wrong again, as usual. There is nothing at all in your post that negates in any way what my previous post says.

And you've typed another open, blatant falsehood. Jesus did NOT come just for the Israelites; He came for all who would believe on Him.
 

keiw

Well-known member
LOL! Nope - You're wrong again, as usual. There is nothing at all in your post that negates in any way what my previous post says.

And you've typed another open, blatant falsehood. Jesus did NOT come just for the Israelites; He came for all who would believe on Him.
You should read the bible.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
LOL! Your post above is just running away.
VERY much "The usual" for one of your posts.
 
Last edited:

keiw

Well-known member
LOL! Your post above is just running away.
VERY much "The usual" for one of your posts.
--Every one knows Jesus came for Israel--After their rejection of him, the gentiles were allowed because a new religion began and Judaism was cut off.
 
Top