≡ Menu

Major Problems with the New World Translation

Pocket edition of the New World Translation of...

The Jehovah Witnesses love to knock on your door and promote their New World Translation (NWT) as the best Bible available to read and study.  A few months back I responded to a question concerning the NWT and decided to post my answer.

Dear Steve,

The New World Translation used by Jehovah Witnesses comes from the actual “Dead Sea Scrolls” that were written in Hebrew. It contains exact scriptures (in English) and puts God’s name back in the Bible over 7,000 times where it is supposed to be. That is the only difference in their Bible. Why do the newer versions of the King James Bible leave out God’s name? Psalm 83:18 clearly says his name is Jehovah. Other scriptures are Exodus 6:3, Isaiah 12:2, Isaiah 26:4, Genesis 22:14, Exodus 17:15, and Judges 6:24.  In the newer King James versions, his name is taken completely out.  In my opinion to truly know someone it starts with knowing their name. How can you truly know someone if you don’t even know what their name is? Therefore, would you want to use a Bible that leaves God’s name out, or would you want to use one that sanctifies it? The choice is yours.

Angela

Dear Angela,
Thanks for writing and giving your view. I will begin by correcting a few obvious errors in your comments. First, your translation does not come directly from the “Dead Sea Scrolls.” The primary source material for the Old Testament in the NWT was Kittel’s Biblia Hebracia. This edition first appeared in 1906. Multiple secondary sources were used including the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The New Testament for the NWT was taken from the Westcott and Hort manuscripts. I have a Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures published by your organization and it admits Westcott and Hort were the primary New Testament text utilized. These manuscripts are accepted as valid texts for the New Testament. The problem is not the original New Testament texts; the problem is how the Greek in the NWT was translated into English and how words were added that were never in the original text.

Second, Jehovah is not a Biblical word. It was created by combining the original Hebrew name for God YHWH and adonai (word used by Jews who didn’t want to say God’s name). The resulting combined word, “Jehovah” has been used for the name God by many groups but it is not found in the Bible. Nowhere do you find the word Jehovah in the original languages, Hebrew or Greek.

Third, forcing the word Jehovah into the New Testament is simply wrong. When your translators did this they went against thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament; some of which date back to the second century. Instead the New Testament uses the words “Lord” [Greek: Kurios] and “God” [Greek: theos] when talking about God. The writers never used Jehovah, even when quoting the Old Testament. The Greek New Testament source for the New World Translation, Westcott and Hort, never used Jehovah. They used kurios for Lord and theos for God. The Kingdom Interlinear confirms Jehovah was never in the original text. This interlinear published by the Watchtower Organization shows how kurios (Lord) and theos (God) were changed to Jehovah in the English translation. Stating God’s name was left out of the King James or any other version of the Bible is false. Angela, I suggest finding a Kingdom Interlinear at your hall so you can see for yourself.  When your organization says they removed the name, they are lying to you.

Finally, let me address additional problems with the New World Translation. When it comes to this translation we find it almost universally rejected by noted scholars in the field of Biblical translations. Dr. Ron Rhodes, who wrote “Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah Witnesses,” stated:

“The New World translation is an incredibly biased translation. Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World translation, concluded the translation ‘has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation…It 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.’ British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, ‘from the beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.’ Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is ‘an insult to the Word of God.’”

Dr. Julius Manti, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World translation “a shocking mistranslation.” Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the New World translation “a frightful mistranslation,” “erroneous,” “pernicious,” and “reprehensible.” Dr. William Barclay concluded that “the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translation. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”

It is highly revealing that the Watchtower Society has always resisted efforts to identify members of the New World Translation committee. The claim was they preferred to remain anonymous and humble, giving God the credit and glory for this translation. However, as former Jehovah witness David Reed notes, “an unbiased observer will quickly note that such anonymity also shields the translators from any blame for errors or distortions in their renderings. And it prevents scholars from checking their credentials.”

The Watchtower Society must have been utterly embarrassed when the names of the translators of the New World translation were made known to the public. The reason for concern was the translation committee was completely unqualified for the task. Four of the five men in the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever (they had only a high school education)[1]. The Fifth, Fred W. Franz, claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon examination under oath in a court of law in Edinburg Scotland he failed a simple Hebrew test.

In court Franz was asked if he knew Hebrew and he said yes. He said he had a command of various languages including Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, German, and French. When asked if he speaks Hebrew, he said no. He was then asked if he could translate the fourth verse of Genesis into Hebrew. His answer was NO! The fact was Franz, like the others on the committee, did not have the knowledge to translate Hebrew or Greek. The truth is Franz dropped out of the University of Cincinnati after his sophomore year and even while there, he had not studied anything related to theological issues[2].

More could be said about the errors of the New World Translation but I will stop here for now. Angela the New World Translation should be avoided at all costs.



[1] Rhodes, Ron, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah Witnesses, Harvest House Publ. , 1993, p. 97

[2] Ibid, p. 97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{ 89 comments… add one }
  • Steven Ben-DeNoon February 14, 2012, 12:31 pm

    I concur with the findings of your report and as a translator and researcher of the Hebrew language on a scholastic level I too have noted many inconsistencies in the New World Translation. I really appreciated your comment about the name of Jehovah and the emphasis that watchtower society places on this name, a name that really is not a name at all. Because of the sacredness of the divine name of G-d rabbinical scholars saw the need to insert the vowels from Adonai into the Divine name thus rendering it with the pronunciation of Jehovah. It is important not to take the LORD’s Name in vain for Jews, and this was the reason for that conversion. So all the emphasis that has been placed on Jehovah as being the name of G-d is false within itself.

  • Dan May 26, 2012, 3:25 pm

    If it was good enough for the rabbinical scholars to insert vowels to get the name of God, then it is good enough for me. Obviously God wanted his name to be known or he wouldn’t have given it to Moses and had him and the other old testament bible book writers include it over 7,000 times.

    Does it really matter if it is YHWH,Yaweh,or Jehovah in english? Is it just a coincidence that when those vowels are inserted, the meaning of the name is “I am that I am”, “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be”, “The one who exists” ect.? At John 17:6, (yes that is in the new testament)Jesus is in prayer with his Father and states that he has made his Fathers NAME known to his followers. This is not only in the NWT but in the vast majority of other bibles.

    So what “name of God” was that, that Jesus made known during the new testament period? When Jesus and the apostles taught from the scriptures, all they had was the old testament which contained the divine name. So obviously they must have used it.

    Obviously Jesus thought it was important to make Gods name known. So why is it so wrong to put it into the new testament today? Is it also important to note that Hebrew renderings of the Christian Greek scriptures down through the centuries have also used the divine name where appropriate and removed the Greek “God” and “Lord”. Also archeologists have found and authenticated fragments of the Greek scriptures (N.T.)which include the divine name.

  • Steve May 29, 2012, 11:25 am

    Dear Dan,
    I never said the usage of the name of God, Jehovah was wrong. I was responding to a letter from a Jehovah Witness who contended the newer versions of the KJV left out the name of God, Jehovah. My point was the word Jehovah was not found in the original manuscripts; it is not a Biblical name but a man-made one. The Hebrew word was YHWH. However, that being said I don’t have a problem with adding the vowels and wherever YHWH appears, the word Jehovah can be inserted. I never said in the article using Jehovah was wrong.

    It is wrong to insert Jehovah in the New Testament because the ancient manuscripts don’t support it. As I said in my post: “Instead the New Testament uses the words “Lord” [Greek: Kurios] and “God” [Greek: theos] when talking about God. The writers never used Jehovah, even when quoting the Old Testament. The Greek New Testament source for the New World Translation, Westcott and Hort, never used Jehovah. They used kurios for Lord and theos for God. The Kingdom Interlinear confirms Jehovah was never in the original text. This interlinear published by the Watchtower Organization shows how kurios (Lord) and theos (God) were changed to Jehovah in the English translation. Stating God’s name was left out of the King James or any other version of the Bible is false.”

    Notice the Greek translation the NWT used was Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort never used Jehovah in the NT. So the Watchtower Organization changed the renderings of an ancient manuscript to fit your teachings. The Kingdom Interlinear, published by the Watchtower, never used Jehovah in the Greek translation of the NT. Do you own a Kingdom Interlinear? Why does this interlinear disagree with you? It was published by your Organization.

    You close by saying archeologists have found an authenticated fragment of the NT with the divine name. Please send me your evidence for archeologists finding an authenticated fragment of Greek NT scriptures that include the divine name Jehovah. Also, provide the sources for your claim the Hebrew renderings of the Christian Greek scriptures used the divine name in the NT and removed “God” and “Lord.” Why do you ignore the fact that thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts do not have the name Jehovah and yet make a big deal out of the possibility of one manuscript (or maybe a few) supporting your position?

    Thanks, Steve

  • halusis June 22, 2012, 11:12 pm

    This was one of many reasons why the name Yeshua represented God; know the father know the son, no one comes to the father except through yeshua.

    We have his sons name that is the core to this faith, jehovah’s witness’s are trained to distract people from the importance of the NAME of his son which was so important to hold.those that believe on him shall have everlasting life. His name shall be “emmanuel”- God with us.

    They want followers to go back to the stone ages of believe dealing directly to the known God of the old testament, the watch tower society is their modern day prophet who interprets scripture for them, ousting out the Holyghost[the divine helper],Stepping on the gift he has givin. The watch tower act as if they are the high priest who makes reconciliation between the people and God.

    But God says any thing we ask according to his will he gives us.

    They dont believe in living in the spirit or inheriting heaven with Yeshua. they believe in just living in fleshly bodies forever drinking wine and eating cheese.the devil has them believing this lie so it can bring death not life

    Yeshua holds the keys of death because he has life.

    “behold, i stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, i will come into him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will i grant to sit with me in my throne, even as i also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne” rev 3:20-21

  • CJ July 3, 2012, 6:01 pm

    Thanks for this article. Very well written. I started to write something similar and then found out the work was done, so I will cite this instead.

    I have studied both Koine Greek and Hebrew for several years each at a Master’s level, and have extensive working knowledge of both. Furthermore, I have worked extensively with professors who are much better trained in these languages than I am. The NWT is a terrible translation of the worst kind, whether done by accident or on purpose it distorts the original meanings of the text in the worst possible way. The tetragrammaton (yahweh) of course was never meant to be jehovah–as stated above, and inserting it into the New Testament manuscripts is a logistical nightmare.

    I might add to this massive error that most people seem to know about from John 1:1, “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” That tiny little letter (a) changes the whole meaning, and is an example of either lazy or deliberately bad translation. In Greek thought the logos (word) was never something that was in plurality, even in Plato it was the singular active force of God. Furthermore the phrase καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος from John 1:1, is what is called a subject=predicate nominative. Basically in Greek grammar its the equivalent of having an = sign between “the Word” and “God,” saying that the logos and God are one and the same. If it was meant to read “the word was A god,” then the logos (λόγος) here would read (λόγοv). Quite obviously, it doesn’t and therefore is a mistranslation. Anyways, I digress because I could go all night on some of these errors, but thanks for the article!

  • Adelle October 30, 2012, 4:40 am

    Hi Steve, sometimes I understand where you are coming from, but then sometimes you are a bit confusing. Are you saying that the name YHWH is legit, and if this was in all bibles that would be ok by you?? Is your problem just with the name Jehovah specifically? Thanks for your help.

  • Steve October 30, 2012, 2:32 pm

    Adelle,
    I am not sure where I have confused you on this issue. I wrote in the article: “Second, Jehovah is not a Biblical word. It was created by combining the original Hebrew name for God YHWH and adonai (word used by Jews who didn’t want to say God’s name). The resulting combined word, ‘Jehovah’ has been used for the name God by many groups but it is not found in the Bible. Nowhere do you find the word Jehovah in the original languages, Hebrew or Greek.” Using Jehovah in OT passages is not a hill I am going to die on. It is simply an English word for YHWH. I will not discount a translation that does this as long as they use it only for the Hebrew word YHWH. Adding Jehovah to the NT is flat out wrong. Did I answer your issue?

    Steve

  • PeterS November 8, 2012, 9:24 pm

    Steve I agree with everything you say. The NWT is the worst English translation of the old scriptures I’ve come across. On the matter of using Jehovah in the NT, there is one explanation given by the JWs. They say they use the old Hebrew version of the NT and not the Greek (note, I’m not referring to more recent Hebrew versions translated from Greek or English). If that’s the case I can understand their point of view since the old Hebrew version would use YHWH. Actually, what they should be using is the Aramaic versions of the NT, and perhaps that’s what they mean. Anyway, I refuse to accept that God’s real name is Jehovah because of two reasons. One, as you stated it’s not seen in any copy of the original scriptures in any language. Two, there is no “J” sound in Hebrew so a Jew would not even be able to pronounce Jehovah. The JWs would have been better off using something like Yahweh. I consider the JWs such a confused lot, and close to being a non-Christian cult.

  • Steve November 9, 2012, 10:26 am

    Peter,
    Your JW friends who say the NWT committee used the Hebrew NT to come up with Jehovah in the NT don’t have the facts to support that contention. As I said in the post on the NWT, the translators utilized the Westcott and Hort Greek manuscripts. Wikipedia says this: “The Greek master text by the Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort (1881) was used as the basis for translating the New Testament into English.” The article goes on to say they used other texts: “Additional works consulted in preparing the New World Translation include the Armenian Version, Coptic Versions, the Latin Vulgate, Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts, Textus Receptus, the Johann Jakob Griesbach’s Greek text, the Emphatic Diaglott, and various papyri.” I checked the links on all of these other texts and none of them are Hebrew versions of the NT. According to Wikipedia NWT translators never used Hebrew versions of the OT. And even if they did why would you? If the autographs (original manuscripts) were written in Greek, why would you consult a Hebrew version? You would end up translating Greek to Hebrew to English. This makes no sense unless you wanted to insert Jehovah into the NT. This is why the NWT cannot be tolerated as anything but a biased poorly written translation.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses are not close to being a non-Christian cult due to the fact they deny the historic truths of the Christian faith and then at the same time called themselves Christians. They are a full-blown “Cult of Christianity.” Steve

  • BRUCE KEEFE December 22, 2012, 7:11 pm

    The neccesity of removing specks from the eyes of those who use the name of God- either as Jehovah or Yahweh, by the above posters in translating the Greek and Hebrew languages of the time, ignores the rafter- that YHWH is used approx. 7000 times in Hebrew Scripture. It is the name of the Hebrew God and it’s actual consonant/vowel sound not withstanding, still conveys the meaning of the active God. Using Jewish superstition to argue for prohibition while denouncing translators as members of the occult is a similar hypocrisy. Why does the Bible go so far as to play with this name in song praising YHWH as YAH/JAH? It is like King William, asking us to call him Bill. Familiarity on part of those who KNOW the divine being allows an informality lacking on the part of the above posters, who have yet come to a comprehension of the one who confounds their purely intellectual approach to Bible translation, and their failure to understand HIS intent. Yeshua-the Salvation of Yah, provides the finest example of this when he states MT 5:18 (KJV), “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Jesus is the fullfillment of the divine name Jehovah/Yahweh. Jesus now addresses God as father, introducing us into an even more intimate relationship. Praise the nameless God? No, Hallelu-Jah!(RV 19:1-6)

  • Steve December 24, 2012, 6:35 am

    Bruce, 12/24/12
    The Bible refers to God utilizing multiple names. YHWH is by far the most widely used. However, does that discount the fact in the Old Testament God is called ELOHIM, ADONAI, JEHOVAH—YAHWEH, JEHOVAH-MACCADDESHEM, JEHOVAH-ROHI, JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH, JEHOVAH-RAPHA, JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU, JEHOVAH-JIREH, JEHOVAH-NISSI, JEHOVAH-SHALOM, JEHOVAH-SABBAOTH, JEHOVAH-GMOLAH, EL-ELYON, EL-ROI, EL-SHADDAI, and EL-OLAM? Since God is also identified as “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” without any mention of Jehovah (YHWH), doesn’t this mean that the name Jehovah is not the only way that God can be addressed in the Old Testament?

    Jesus never identified the Father as Jehovah. Was Jesus wrong for not calling the Father by his personal name? When He taught us how to pray, how are we to address the Father? Matthew 6:9 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.’” Jesus taught his disciples and us to say “Our Father” and not “Our Jehovah.” You need to chastise Him for forgetting to use Jehovah here and all through his ministry. Jesus never said the name Jehovah. Bruce was Jesus wrong?

    Why didn’t any of the New Testament writers use the name Jehovah? Were all the writers of the New Testament out of line? Are you going to correct them? There are over 5,700 ancient New Testament manuscripts and none of them ever used the name Jehovah. NONE! Does the Watchtower Organization know more than Jesus and the New Testament writers?

    In my posted letter to Angela (Jehovah’s Witness) I wrote: Forcing the word Jehovah [by the New World Translation] into the New Testament is simply wrong. When your translators did this they went against thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament; some of which date back to the second century. Instead the New Testament uses the words “Lord” [Greek: Kurios] and “God” [Greek: theos] when talking about God. The writers never used Jehovah, even when quoting the Old Testament. The Greek New Testament source for the New World Translation, Westcott and Hort, never used Jehovah. They used kurios for Lord and theos for God. The Kingdom Interlinear confirms Jehovah was never in the original text. This interlinear published by the Watchtower Organization shows how kurios (Lord) and theos (God) were changed to Jehovah in the English translation. Stating God’s name was left out of the King James or any other version of the Bible is false. Angela, I suggest finding a Kingdom Interlinear at your hall so you can see for yourself. When your organization says they removed the name, they are lying to you. Bruce why do you follow an organization that blatantly lies to you?

    Steve

  • Ellen January 21, 2013, 12:09 am

    Thank you for helping people understand what a dishonest translation this is. Your work is appreciated.

  • Seth August 2, 2013, 2:31 am

    How about, in this scenario, just let people believe what they wanna believe. JW is one of the myriad of Christian subgroups we have, inasmuch are Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Protestants, or, you name it, they’re all divisions of the Gospel. There’s virtually no single Christian religion, only denominations within Christian belief. All believe in Yahushua (Jesus’s true name) in some way or another and more importantly YHWH, and His relation to Yahushua. Yes they vary a tiny tiny bit, but does it matter so much how, as their Faith? Is “How” more important than God? Does everyone think the same way? no, and I’m sure God has an understanding of this, what with all the schisms that broke off from the Church. No translation is 100% correct, I mainly use the KJV and Douay-Rheims in my biblical research, and I’m not a JW, but I find that the NWT oft-times elucidates any verse I have trouble in interpreting and the footnotes therein are brilliant! explains all the original Hebrew and Greek roots of particular words and clauses, and how they determined where God’s Name should be inserted by given inspiration, I haven’t found one flaw. The only problem I have with them is their adoption of the Protestant 66 book canon of the Bible, which excluding the deuterocanonical books, which ignorantly came to be placed among the so-called “Apocrypha” list of books and thrust out. And even if they weren’t the most skilled in Hebrew or Greek, truth should never be measured by an understanding of worldly human language, as every previous translator had relied on, in which there were always found one or more faults and biased motives from the translators. God, in the bible itself, never deems knowledge of Hebrew or Greek to be a necessity, or explains how to determine which manuscripts are most valid, or says listen to smart scholars, and Paul speaks against this, the “wisdom of this world”, assuming academia is included in what he’s talking about. As for you saying they added words to the NWT, well, I’ve heard that argument one-to-many times about almost every translation, I think all translations are a little faulty, and when people realize this, they make newer translations and strive to make it more accurate and faithful to the original, but imo it fosters more confusion than anything, and it’s strikingly obvious it’s more man-made than inspired of the Holy Spirit, as the original would have been. I’ve even heard that translations aren’t so much translations as interpretations and what results from this is what the translator(s) believe to be the original message, which can’t be disproven AFAIK, so I can’t argue with that. So this would mean requiring more studying of the Scriptures if you want to see the underlying text, which inspiration the Holy Spirit is behind. If anyone thinks they have it understood and are all set, it’d be best to check again and make sure they weren’t mislead, John didn’t say antichrist spirits we’re already coming out from among the Apostles for nothing (1 Jo 2:18-19). Reproving others I believe is a vital task in these questioning times, new discoveries are being made all the time, concerning the Bible, there’s the Nag Hammadi library in Egypt, and the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran, and many more, I’m not saying anything is new, just new to us, there’s never anything that hasn’t been foreseen before, it’s been here the whole time, “nothing new under the sun”.

  • Steve August 3, 2013, 1:17 pm

    Seth,
    Thanks for your extensive reply. I will deal with your comments over a period of time. I am on vacation and time is an issue.

    First, Jehovah’s Witnesses are the ones on the offensive. They come to my door and attack my beliefs. Is it okay if I respond, similar to what you are doing? Is it okay to tell them they are wrong, similar to what you are doing to me? There are only 3 scenarios. Either they are right and I am wrong, I am right and they are wrong, or we’re both wrong. Since what I believe has eternal consequences if you place your faith in a false Jesus, then shouldn’t I warn them?

    Second, you seem to think they are Christian (along with others). What is your definition of a Christian? Who qualifies?

    Steve

  • israel August 5, 2013, 1:25 am

    please can you substanciate the fact that the translators of NWT were revealed and how true is there incompitence

  • Steve August 5, 2013, 6:41 am

    Israel,
    Here is a web site with the information: http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm

    Quoting from the site:

    The NWT translators were: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz, M. Henschel
    •”Fred Franz however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew.” [“Crisis of Conscience”; by Raymond Franz; Commentary Press, Atlanta; 1983 edition; footnote 15; page 50.]
    •Four out of the five men on the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training at all. They had only a high school education. Franz studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, but dropped out after his sophomore year. When asked in a Scotland courtroom if he could translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, Franz replied that he could not. The truth is that Franz was unable to translate Hebrew or Greek.
    •What we are left with is a very inexperienced translating committee that twisted Scripture to make it fit the Society’s doctrine.

    What leading Greek scholars say about the NWT:
    1.Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT “a frightful mistranslation,” “Erroneous” and “pernicious” “reprehensible” “If the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.” (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)
    2.Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said “it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
    3.British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, “From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.”
    4.”Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation.” (These words were excerpted from the tape, “Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation”, Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
    5.Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT “a shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god.'”
    6.”I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures…. 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 a distortion not a translation.” (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
    7.the translators of the NWT are “diabolical deceivers.” (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)

    Why were you interested in my sources? Do you agree with their translation? Do you think Jehovah should be added to the New Testament? In Colossians 1:16-18 do you think the word “other” should be added to the text? Do you think John 1:1 should have “a god?”

    Steve

  • Seth August 6, 2013, 9:31 am

    What’s wrong with “other” being included in Col 1:16-18? Isn’t Jehovah (YHWH) alone the Creator? That’s obviously the point the NWT is making, certain things were created by the Christ (Messiah), but he’s not the Creator, he’s the head of the body (the Church, or, Messianic Community), which God created. It’s not anti-christ in any way shape or form, the translation is just trying to put Christ in his rightful messianic place, probably cause his name is used out of context so often. Translating “Lord” or “God” in certain areas of the New Testament to Jehovah clears things up ALOT, especially in tying the two testaments or covenants together (as there’s always been only ONE Covenant, not two, as was originally understood). In my opinion the NWT doesn’t translate Lord or God to Jehovah (YHWH) in all the places it should, and should also translate the true name of the Messiah too, which is YAHUSHUA, or in following the “Jehovah” rendering of YHWH, it’d probably be something like “Jehoshua”. In John 1:1, “a god” means literally “godlike” or “divine”, as in, it’s expressing a certain quality of the Word (Logos), or “Word of God”, “God the Son”, “Christ”, “the Son”, or “Wisdom”, it’s a noun expressing an identity or personality that has the nature of God. Saying the Word WAS God isn’t very clear anyways, many people confuse this verse as implying that the Messiah is God, which would clearly be idolatry, at least in the Jewish sense.

  • Steve August 7, 2013, 5:48 pm

    Seth,
    You asked what’s wrong with “other” being included in Col. 1:16-18. If a word is added that changes the meaning of a passage that practice is deemed heretical. If the Bible is God’s Word then any person or group altering His wording would come under His wrath. So does the word “other” help clarify or alter the meaning?

    To begin with Jesus in verse 15 is called the “firstborn,” which has multiple meanings. It doesn’t mean “first created” as the Jehovah’s Witnesses contend. Paul had another Greek word he could have used that means created but he didn’t.

    The best definition is “preeminent one.” How do we know this? The verses following show that Jesus is the preeminent one over creation. Colossians 1:16 says, “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions of rulers or authorities – all things have been created through Him and for Him.” Paul here is stating Jesus is the preeminent one as He is the uncreated creator. Jesus created all things that came into existence both in heaven and on earth. In the Greek “all things” means everything. All contingent beings came into existence by Jesus. John 1:3 says the same thing but stronger. John 1:3: “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him (from his agency) nothing came into being that has come into being.” If Jesus created everything and He cannot create Himself, therefore, He is the uncreated creator.

    Yet, YHWH says this in Isaiah 45:12: “It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands and I ordained all their host.” YHWH says he created the earth and man. The New Testament clearly teaches Jesus created everything. How are you going to resolve this issue?

    The only solution is YHWH is Triune. Jesus is God, second person of the Trinity. A definition of the Trinity is one God subsists in three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; co-equal and co-eternal. The Bible is very clear there is only one God. And yet Jesus in John 1:1 is called God. Without the Trinity the Jehovah’s Witnesses are stuck making Jesus a lesser god. Multiple passages in Isaiah 43-48 make this solution impossible. Isaiah 43:10b “…Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me.” There was no god formed before or after YHWH. Isaiah 44:8b “And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.’” God says he knows of no existing god. Therefore, Jesus cannot be another separate divine being, a “mighty god.” Jesus is the creator and Jesus is of the same substance as the Father. John 1:1-3 makes that case. Jesus walked the earth truly God and truly man.

    By adding the words “other” the Jehovah’s Witness wanted to say Jesus created everything other than himself. It is their contention YHWH created Jesus and he created the rest. That is a change in the meaning of what Paul communicated here and in John 1:3. Nowhere do we see YHWH creating Jesus. All we see is Jesus creates everything. Adding the word “other” is heretical.

    In light of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-18, how can you say Jesus is not the creator? How can you say Jesus is not God?

    Again I am on vacation and answering when I can. I’ll deal with other parts of your letter later.

    Steve

  • Steve August 10, 2013, 6:41 am

    Seth,
    I have additional thoughts to make based on your previous comments.

    You wrote: “Translating “Lord” or “God” in certain areas of the New Testament to Jehovah clears things up ALOT, especially in tying the two testaments or covenants together (as there’s always been only ONE Covenant, not two, as was originally understood).”

    It is heretical for anyone or group to change the intended words and meaning of the original writers. They were writing what God wanted. The Bible is God’s Word and not to be mistranslated by men who have no training in Greek and Hebrew (one had a little).

    The Greek word the disciples used for God is theos and not the Hebrew word YHWH. Jehovah was a made up word when the Jews combined YHWH and adonai. Jehovah is not a Biblical word. To add it to the New Testament when the writers wrote “theos” is a heresy. Then to translate the Greek word kyrios to Jehovah is again heretical. Jehovah at best can be used in the Old Testament only. It was never used in the New Testament even when the writers quoted the Old Testament.

    Wayne Grudem writes: When we realize that the New Testament authors generally use the name “God” (Gk. theos) to refer to God the Father and the name “Lord” (Gk. kyrios) to refer to God the Son, then it is clear that there is another Trinitarian expression in 1 Corinthians 12:4–6: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one.” Similarly, the last verse of 2 Corinthians is Trinitarian in its expression: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14). We see the three persons mentioned separately in Ephesians 4:4–6 as well: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.” All three persons of the Trinity are mentioned together in the opening sentence of 1 Peter: “According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with his blood” (1 Peter 1:2 NASB). And in Jude 20–21, we read: “But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. ” (Clearest formulation of the Trinty is found in Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”)

    An example of where the Father and God are interchangeable (synonymous) can be found in Matthew and Mark. I have underlined the key words.

    Matthew 12:50 [Jesus is speaking] “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
    Mark 3:35 [Jesus is speaking] “For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
    Again generally when we see the word “God” in the scriptures we can think of the Father. However, sometimes the writers used “God” when referencing Jesus or the Holy Spirit or the Triune God.

    Jesus is called God in John 20:28 “Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], ‘My Lord and my God!’” Jesus then commends Thomas for calling him Lord and God. This is a very straightforward passage identifying Jesus as God.

    The Holy Spirit is called God in Acts 5:3-4 “But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.’” Lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God because the Holy Spirit is God.

    When we read the scriptures in context and recognize the word “God” is primarily the Father, we will clear up the passages that seem to be contradictions. The infrequent times the Son or Holy Spirit are called “God” are easily recognized by the context. Occasionally, “God” means the Trinity. Passages declaring the existence of only one God are not identifying one of the three persons but the entire Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). James says the demons recognize the one God in James 2:19, “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” Here is a perfect example of the Triune God. Remember we worship one God subsisting in three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; co-equal and co-eternal.

    Steve

  • Pete August 13, 2013, 3:34 am

    ex-JW and very glad I got out.

    What I find strange though is that the NT writers decided not to use the tetragram so I’ve formulated a simple theory to explain it.

    The first Christians were Jews so they were well aware of the tetragram in the Hebrew scriptures. However, by the time the NT was written, Christology had developed enough to separate the Judaic Jews from the Christian Jews to the point where the Christians probably wanted to bring to the forefront Jesus’s name over YHWH which was obviously associated with Judaic Jews. They didn’t even use YHWH when quoting from the OT. That is pretty fanatical so you can see that this issue was forced (religious politics) by the first generation Christians.
    The Muslims did exactly the same thing. They dropped the Hebrew YHWH in favour of Allah for similar religious politics.

    Regarding the Trinity, I think that it is a forced issue amongst the Trinitarians. I don’t see that the Holy Spirit is a personality. It is not crystal clear that the nature of God is of a triune entity. I think that the JW might be correct on this issue (they are not the only unitarians BTW). The first Christians were themselves probably confused as to the nature of Christ so they had to come up with something, hence all the intermingling of God and Christ. They gave more power to Christ so that the gentiles would have something more tangible to believe in. Pagans like tangible gods.

    firstborn = πρωτότοκον = firstborn. Isn’t that an open and shut case?
    Besides, what is wrong with Christ being the esteemed first creation of God in heaven. God had to start somewhere. What is your problem with that? It doesn’t contradict the OT or the NT because Christ is a god that gets things done. I think Trinitarians painted themselves into a corner and can’t get out just like JWs painted themselves into a corner with all those ridiculous Armageddon prophecies throughout their history.

    Now, having said all that, I don’t see the problem with full polytheism!! Just because the Jews came up with a theology that only their God is the God and any other god is a false god just doesn’t make it so. Regardless of what JWs and Jews and Muslims spout about one God, the irony of their monotheistic argument is they forget that their theology revolves around a pantheon of gods in competition. They never really got over those cool Greek gods.

  • Steve August 13, 2013, 12:47 pm

    Pete,
    I am glad to hear you have left the Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, I am uncertain to where you have landed. You seem to continue to hold to some Watchtower beliefs. On my web site I have written extensively on the false beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I suggest checking those out.

    The first issue I will deal with is your understanding of the word “firstborn.” The Greek word used in Colossians 1:15 is “prototokos” which can mean birth order, first in rank, preeminent one, or heir. So how do we know which definition is the best? We can study the context of the passage. Colossians 1:15-17 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 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 through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” The definition “preeminent one” makes the most sense since verses 16 and 17 say he was the creator of everything and all things were created for Him. Jesus cannot be created if He is the creator; He cannot create Himself (see also John 1:3).

    Jehovah’s Witnesses still want to strongly assert the best definition is birth order in spite of the context of the passage. They say Pharaoh’s first born indicates birth order and it should be applied here. However, David was called firstborn in Psalm 89:27 and yet he was the youngest of seven brothers. In Psalm 89 he was the preeminent one or heir of God’s promise. The Messiah would come from the line of David. In addition firstborn was used when speaking of the priority of Israel in Exodus 4:22 (Israel my firstborn son). Again this doesn’t have anything to do with birth order. In addition when Paul uses firstborn he does not mean “first-created.” Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe Jesus was born in a human sense but that He is a created being. In the Greek the word for “first-created” is protoktisis. Paul avoided this term because he was not teaching that Jesus was a created being. The verses that follow strongly support Jesus as the uncreated creator.

    In an attempt to bolster their case and change the context of the verses that follow verse 15, the New World Translation [NWT] added the word “other” four times. This was done to avoid calling Jesus the preeminent one, the uncreated creator. The word “other” was added in brackets in the NWT because it is not in the original. In verses 16 -17 the NWT writes, “…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. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist.” The word [other] was added to deny that Jesus created everything. Any word additions to the Bible that change the meaning of the text violate the rules of interpretation and in this case are heretical. The word “other” is not in the Greek manuscripts according to their own textbook called the “Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.” They claim the word [other] helps clarify the verses. However, it actually changes what Paul intended. Words cannot be added if they change the meaning of the passage. Luke 13:2 is an example of where “other” is added in many translations but doesn’t change the meaning of the passage. This is an acceptable practice.

    The issue of the Trinity has always been a problem for Jehovah’s Witnesses. You seem to have a similar problem. The Trinity is actually a solution and not a problem. The Bible teaches 3 facts that need to work together: 1) There is only 1 God (I can post at least 28 verses in the Bible that support this), 2) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons (having a mind, rationality, and can show love are characteristics of a person), and 3) Each person is God. I have an entire series dedicated to the Trinity called, “Loving the Trinity.” Another series to help you understand how Jesus can be truly man and truly God is called, “Believing in Jesus as God and Man.”

    I hope this helps.
    Steve

  • Pete August 13, 2013, 2:11 pm

    BTW. Thanks for bringing to my attention the bad translation of the NWT. I checked out a video on it and it seems pretty deliberate to me. They are dishonest enough to change meanings in the bible to match their theology. That is blasphemous and it gives ammunition to the Muslims who have always said that the christian bible has no integrity.

    I don’t think I’m still influenced by JWs but you can say that they brought the issue of the trinity to my attention. As I said they are not the only unitarians. And don’t forget there was a great debate about it in the early years, so as far as I can understand it for myself, the jury is still out, on the finer details of God’s nature. And I say this after reading and listening to knowledgeable scholars trying to explain it. They all seem to wonder into philosophical territory by the time they finish explaining it. It requires too much cross referencing in the bible to pin him down. Also, it is almost impossible for me to imagine that the Almighty creator of everything, the God that we are familiar with from the OT would allow himself to be tortured and strung up by a bunch of good for nothing pagans at the behest of a people he was punishing over the 2000 years (from Abraham). But I have to accept that the Trinity is a possibility.

  • Steve August 15, 2013, 10:12 am

    Pete,
    I love the way you respond with your comments. You are gracious in the way you communicate.

    As I wrote previously I suggest you read my take on the Trinity at: http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/4-loving-the-trinity/ If we take the Bible seriously then the only solution to the 3 facts I mentioned in my previous email is the Doctrine of the Trinity (1. Only 1 God, 2. Three distinct persons, and 3. Each are God.).

    I am aware of other groups who are unitarians. I once shared with a “Oneness Pentacostal.” They qualify as modalists. Modalism was declared a heresy during the 2nd century.

    Yes there were many theological discussions in the early church, basically responding to heretical teachings (i.e. Arianism and Modalism). The foundation of their final description of the Triune nature of God was the Bible. God has been Triune from all eternity. It was after the incarnation of Jesus do we see more developed Biblical foundations for the Trinity. However, as early as Genesis 1 we find a hint of the Trinity. Genesis 1:26 (KJV) “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” How can the one God say “us” and “our?” There are a number of passages where God speaks in these terms and yet, the Bible over and over again affirms there is only one God. In fact polytheism was one of the major reasons for the judgment of God against the nation of Israel. The New Testament provides the necessary teachings to arrive at the Doctrine of the Trinity.

    Why would the 2nd person of the Trinity (Jesus) come to earth for die for us? The Apostle Paul gives us a great explanation: Romans 5:6-11 (NASB) “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.”

    Jesus (God/man) dying on the cross is the only way we can be right with God. We are all enemies of God and only through Jesus can we receive the payment and forgiveness for our sins. He did this because of His great love. This is called grace.

    Does that make sense?

    Steve

  • baidoo November 9, 2013, 6:55 am

    It is really a cult and not from God.

  • sam.s.spade November 12, 2013, 1:41 am

    Well Steve,
    After reading several of comments on this site I find it odd in the end that one of religious belief, can believe in the Trinity. Sorry to say, most people do not read history to understand the under taking of the Trinity which was instilled by the Roman Emperor Constantine (which by the way was not Christian until his death bed but a believer in the Sun God) from an idea of a deacon. So, please explain to me how so many people were killed to put into effect the idea of the Trinity and how this must be true? How in fact does something so confusing as the Trinity solve anything except for creating even more confusion?

  • Steve Bruecker November 12, 2013, 5:55 am

    Sam,
    Are you are Jehovah’s Witness? Where did you get your historical information? Both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have been given false historical information from their leadership concerning the Council of Nicea. In discussions I’ve had to correct them repeatedly.

    For quick access to fairly accurate historical information you can read the “Council of Nicea” on Wikipedia. It at least has input from various sources and captures the main points. You can find that at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea. My Master’s degree in Apologetics required a “Historical Theology” course plus two semesters on Christian doctrines. We studied the Council of Nicea.

    Constantine did call the council of bishops to Nicea. It was to resolve the argument between Alexander and Arius. At first he thought the issue was a simple disagreement over words. Later he realized the extent of the disagreement. Below are the primary points of disagreement from Wikipedia.

    Position of Arius

    According to surviving accounts, the nontrinitarian Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature made from nothing, begotten directly of the Eternal God, and that he was God’s First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said the Arians, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; and therefore there was a time that He had no existence. Arius believed that the Son of God was capable of His own free will of right and wrong, and that “were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being”,[44] and was under God the Father. Therefore Arius insisted that the Father’s divinity was greater than the Son’s. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: “the Father is greater than I”, and also Colossians 1:15: “Firstborn of all creation”.

    Position of the council (Alexander)

    Alexander and the Nicene fathers countered the Arians’ argument, saying that the Father’s fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a Father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him, co-equally and con-substantially. The Nicene fathers believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father. They insisted that such a view was in contravention of such Scriptures as “I and the Father are one” and “the Word was God”, as such verses were interpreted. (John 10:30 John 1:1) With Athanasius, they declared that the Son had no beginning, but had an “eternal derivation” from the Father, and therefore was co-eternal with him, and equal to God in all aspects.

    Constantine left the decision of the council to decide which position was Biblical. When the vote was taken 316 Bishops voted against Arius and 2 supported him. Arainism was branded a heresy. Today this heresy is alive and well within the Watchtower Organization. I have confronted Witnesses with this historical information and they have admitted they believe Arius got it right.

    The Trinity is not true because of the council of Nicea. It’s foundation is the Bible. Three key facts are supported by the Bible.
    1. Only one God (no mighty god or lesser god). I can send you at least 28 verses that teach only 1 God.
    2. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate and distinct persons. In other words they can communicate, love, have rationality, etc. These are non-physical traits of a person.
    3. Each person is God. Scriptures in support of this point can be found in my series called “Loving the Trinity.” http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/loving-the-trinity-part-1/

    The Bible establishes the above 3 facts. The doctrine of the Trinity is the only solution. The church didn’t invent the Trinity, it discovered the true nature of God through the revelation of the Scriptures. God has always been Triune and the early church believed this. Only when heresies arose (modalism and Arianism) did the church have to establish the doctrine.

    The Trinity is not confusing. A simple definition is: One God subsists in 3 persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; co-equal and co-eternal.

    I hope that helps…

    Steve Bruecker

  • patsy spell March 24, 2014, 10:22 am

    Steve- thank you for your expertise on the errors of the NWT and erroneous beliefs of then JW. Your facts has greatly helped me to be more knowledgable when confronted by a JW and I have defend my beliefs in the one Triune God and probably also them saying their NWT came directly from the dead sea scrolls as I am sure they probably try to confuse others with such a statement. I have tried to explain the trinity to my 8 yo grandson using cutting an apple into 3 parts and asking are all 3 parts still completely apple? to which he replies yes. so I tell him that is correct. just like God is 3 persons God The Father/God The Son/ God the Holy Spirit. Each person is very much God but it takes all 3 persons to completely make up the one true God just like it takes all three pieces to make a whole apple even though each individual piece is apple all by itself. thanks again. you are very informative

  • patsy spell March 24, 2014, 10:49 am

    my question is- when defending my beliefs with a JW explain the process please of from the original hebrew/greek transcripts did westcott/hort translate from the dead sea scrolls and then where did the kingdom interlinear translation come from and what is its importance to JW and how did they get their NWT and is it a specific translation used only by JW done by specific men they appointed to do for them and thereby changed or added wording like replacing God and Lord with Jehovah?I need the know the process in order to tell JW where theres came from and why it is not adequate. Sorry it is so much of it started here by this one and later became this and was changed to this that I got lost. Please make it simple thereby easier to explain to a JW. thanks.

  • Steve Bruecker March 24, 2014, 5:55 pm

    Patsy,
    Thanks for your kind words. I love sharing with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    I personally would avoid using physical examples to explain the Triune God. Your example of the apple being cut into three parts, teaches God is divided into 3 parts. This is a heresy. My favorite definition of the Trinity is: One God subsists (continue to exist) in 3 persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; co-equal and co-eternal. God is unified and not divided. All 3 persons are fully God and not 1/3rd of God, which the apple communicates. Just tell your grandson God is a big God and the Father is God, Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God but there is only 1 God. That is all he needs to know at this time. I have a series on the Trinity called: Loving the Trinity. It is an icon near the bottom of the home page.

    I hope that helps…Steve

  • Steve Bruecker March 25, 2014, 6:04 pm

    Patsy,
    First the Dead Sea Scrolls contained only the Old Testament and other Jewish writings of that time period. Westcott and Hort was a New Testament Greek critical text taken from some of the oldest and best ancient NT manuscripts. Therefore, it wasn’t found in the caves of the dead sea scrolls.

    As my post points out, the men who translated the New World Translation, were not Greek scholars. Only one of the five said he had knowledge of the ancient languages (Greek and Hebrew) and then in court it was shown he was a fraud. He couldn’t pass a simple Hebrew test. They have zero justification for the major changes they have made to the Scriptures. Adding the word (other) to the verses in Colossians 1:16-18 is heretical. The word “other” appears nowhere in the original Greek text. It is put there to avoid the fact that Jesus is the uncreated creator. Also adding the “a” god to John 1:1 goes against the vast majority of Biblical scholars.

    I have written extensively on Jehovah’s Witnesses. Go to “Sharing with a Jehovah Witnesses” series or “Challenging a Jehovah’s Witnesses” or “Exposing the Deceit of the Watchtower Organization.” You can find lots of information on how to challenge a Jehovah’s Witness. The first two series listed are icons on the home page.

    I hope that helps,
    Steve Bruecker

  • Rachelle Fincher March 28, 2014, 10:33 pm

    This comment doesn’t really have to do with the NWT, but the fact that the JW’s teach that the creation story is wrong. They say one day equals 1000 years because the bible doesn’t specifically say a 24 hour day. I am conversing with a JW elder (why God sent an elder my way, I can’t imagine), and could a little help with my argument.
    Thanks, Rachelle

  • Steve Bruecker March 29, 2014, 6:45 am

    Rachelle,
    The Bible doesn’t give an age of the earth. No verse says the earth is 6,000 years old. I wrote a series that might help you understand the issues involved. It is called, “Establishing God as the creator.” On the home page, it is a bottom left icon.

    In that series, I discuss 7 different ways Christians interpret the creation account. The key is to understand the Hebrew word for “Day” is “Yom.” Yom can mean sunrise to sunset, sunset to sunrise, 24 hours, or and extended period of time. The JWs are using 2 Peter 3:8 “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.’ The context of this passage has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

    My point is, many true followers of Christ believe the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. I am one of them. I believe the texts of the Bible best supports Yom to mean an extended period of time.

    This is not a “hill to die on” when talking with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I have written extensively on how to show they falsely interpret the Bible. The series, “Sharing with a Jehovah’s Witness” would be a good place to start.

    Steve

  • Cheryl Phillips May 11, 2014, 5:32 pm

    Good evening. My parents are both 89, partially sighted and live more than an hours drive away from me. They can no longer get to church on a Sunday and unfortunately a friend of theirs who is also a Jehovas witness has now started having bible studies at their home for them. I have tried to explain that they are being misled but my mum is now so brain washed that she will not refer to God any other way than by Jehovah. Is there perhaps a good DVD that I can buy them on the topic? I find it quite hurtful and very disturbing that they will believe what the JW tell them and not the truth that we shared going to church when I was growing up.

  • Steve Bruecker May 14, 2014, 4:53 pm

    Cheryl,
    Thanks for your comments. I sent a personal email to you concerning your question on a JW DVD. Let me know if my two solutions work for you.

    Steve

  • Rod May 25, 2014, 6:06 pm

    I enjoyed reading everything above. Steve I’m sorry to comment on the one thing I disagree with you on since I agreed with everything else. About a mile up if you scroll you refrenced the Genisis passage “Let us make man in our image” as being evidence for the trinity doctrine. I believe in the trinity doctrine but I do not like to use that as an example. Rabbis have explained the plural “our” as a way that God informed his heavenly host. I’m not saying the Jewish explanation is correct. I’m saying because of the possibility I do not use Genesis plural “our” while discussing the trinity.

    Thanks
    Rod

    http://m.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/558595/jewish/Who-was-Gd-addressing-when-saying-Let-US-create-man.htm

    And a site I found while looking for the first concerning plural “our” in Genesis

    http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/monotheism/genesis-plurals.html

  • Steve Bruecker May 26, 2014, 11:07 am

    Rod,
    Thank-you for your thoughtful reply and your sources for additional study. As I said in part 9 of my series on the Trinity, passages in the Old Testament don’t directly teach the Trinity. Jesus had not come on the scene and polytheism was the problem of the day for the nation of Israel. God would not have revealed the Trinity to a people worshiping idols.

    I agree the original Jewish audience probably would not have read those verses and come up with the doctrine of the Trinity. However, God has existed as a Triune God for all eternity and He is the author of the Bible. Did God leave hints of his Triune nature in the Hebrew Scriptures? I believe He did, just like He left hints of His coming Son Jesus. This is why we believe in progressive revelation. Some things were brought to light in the New Testament, that was hinted at in the Old Testament. Abraham was granted righteousness in Genesis 15:6 but did he know who paid for His sins? This was not revealed until Jesus goes to the cross. Abraham was saved by the death of Jesus on the cross but that wasn’t revealed until the New Testament. Would a Hebrew reader know that? I doubt it.

    Did these sites you shared make a good case? If they are Jewish sites, they have to have an answer for the Christian. They don’t believe Jesus is fully God and fully man. And they are right when they say the early audience wouldn’t have come up with the Trinity. But they also would say the Hebrew Scriptures don’t point to Jesus. We would say Jesus is all over the Old Testament.

    I found their explanations standard for a Jewish person who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity and rejects Jesus is the God/man. However, I still stand by my explanation in part 9 of my series on the Trinity. God as the author of the Hebrew Scriptures hinted at his Triune nature in various places.

    That being said I don’t use the Genesis passage to make my case for the Trinity. Why? Because I am aware of the liabilities you pointed out. And because I have so many passages in the New Testament to support the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Thanks again for your thoughtful reply,
    Steve

  • Steve Bruecker May 31, 2014, 3:53 pm

    Howard,
    I am going out of town for a few days. I will get back to you as soon as I can.

    You have some idea of my beliefs but I wonder what your worldview is. Are you a Jehovah’s Witness? What is your belief system?

    Steve

  • Howard June 1, 2014, 8:28 am

    Steve,

    No, I am not a Jehovah’s Witness, but after studying the Bible (not with them) for over 25 years, I agree with a lot of what they say. I don’t belong to any religious organization, I do my own research. My main fields of interest are the divine name, manuscripts, and textual criticism. I wrote a book on the Tetragrammaton a few years back. If you are interested, I can send you a PDF version. I would like to reiterate a couple of points and you can consider them while you are gone.

    First, since I am not sure of your background in these areas, here is a brief outline of the Hebrew alphabet and language. Some of our oldest Hebrew manuscripts are written in Ketav Ivri or paleo-Hebrew and this was nearly identical to the Phoenician alphabet. The paleo-Hebrew alphabet and language remained relatively unchanged until the Babylonian exile. Following the destruction of the Temple, Hebrew came under the influence of other languages, particularly Aramaic. The Hebrew language adopted the square script alphabet of Imperial Aramaic, known as Ketav Ashuri. Tradition holds that Ezra adopted the Aramaic square alphabet in place of the paleo-Hebrew alphabet during the post-exilic restoration of Israel in the fifth century B.C.E. Later on, Jewish scholars of the second half of the first millennium C.E. invented a system of points to represent vowels. These vowel points were placed around the consonants in the Hebrew Bible. When it came to God’s name, we really have no way of knowing for sure if they used at least some of the proper vowel points, or if they used the vowel points from a completely different word, such as Adonai. However, it is from the vowel points that are preserved in these Hebrew manuscripts that we get the spelling YeHoWaH or Iehouah, which eventually gave us Jehovah.

    Therefore, if you believe God had a hand in preserving his word, on what basis do you reject the spelling (including the added vowel point) of YeHoWaH that God preserved in the manuscripts? Is it the anglicized form Jehovah that you object to? If that’s true, why do you say Jeremiah, and not Yirmeyahu? Why do you say Isaiah, and not Yeshayahu? Actually, when you say those names, you are using a Hellenized (Greek) pronunciation, not Hebrew.

    I would like to take a minute and turn your own words around on you. You say that it is wrong to have Jehovah in the New Testament, right? Then by your own words, taken from this article, and slightly revised, you must also believe it is wrong to have LORD in the Old Testament.

    “Third, forcing the capitalized word LORD into the Old Testament is simply wrong. When your translators did this they went against thousands of Hebrew manuscripts of the OLD Testament; some of which date back to the second century B.C.E. Instead the Old Testament uses the word “YHWH” [Hebrew: Yehowah] (in 6,928 places) when talking about God. The writers never used Adonai (in those 6,928 places) in the Old Testament. The Hebrew Old Testament source for all modern versions, BHS, never used Adonai (in those 6,928 places). It used YHWH for God’s name and Elohim for God. The BHS confirms Adonai was never used in those 6,928 places in the original text.”

    Do you agree with that?

  • Steve Bruecker June 4, 2014, 6:45 pm

    Howard, 6/4/14
    I am back from my work in Seattle, WA. I would love to receive a PDF version of your book.

    My background is I was an atheist until I was around 32 years old. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, I was convicted of my sins and I believed Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins. By God’s grace I was granted forgiveness. My life was transformed at that moment. A few months after that experience, I heard a teaching on the reliability of the Bible, from that moment on, I have been addicted to apologetics. I read and study a vast array of topics from philosophy, to science, to morality, other religions, etc. I regularly teach classes on apologetics and theology.

    Basically, I am a generalist, with a specialty in reaching Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses for Christ. I have spent hundreds of hours emailing and meeting with them over the years.
    I am now retired but work as a consultant to pay the bills. This gives me more time to write and interact on my web site. I do not specialize in your area of expertise. Therefore, I consult books and experts to give answers to challenges.

    I have done some research and here is what I’ve found.

    I have no problem with using Jehovah (YHWH) in the Old Testament. So we can take that issue off the table.

    You quoted me in one of your comments and turned the tables: “I would like to take a minute and turn your own words around on you. You say that it is wrong to have Jehovah in the New Testament, right? Then by your own words, taken from this article, and slightly revised, you must also believe it is wrong to have LORD in the Old Testament.” You make a good point except in the NT manuscripts, the writers repeatedly used Kurios in place of YHWH. In other words, if we accept the manuscript evidence we have, translating kurios as “Jehovah” in the NT has no support, whereas translating YHWH as “LORD” in the OT, at the very least, has the support of the practice of the NT writings.

    You seem to argue we cannot know what the Greek NT originally said where the manuscripts use the form KS. However, KS is demonstrably an abbreviated form of KurioS, which is the default presumption, in that the original text said either kurios or KS. Either way, it means “Lord.” There’s no room to support the speculation that the text originally said YHWH. You wrote, “Because it makes more sense to believe the original contraction KS was used as a way to make a distinction between KS=YHWH and Kurios=Jesus. But later on all occurrences mistakenly became KS.” This conclusion seems to be mere speculation.

    Steve

  • Jenn June 5, 2014, 5:28 am

    Dear Steve,
    I have been talking to a Witness for a while and have just been asking for insight into how I should show them the love of Christ and came upon your article. I just want to say God bless you for the time and dedication you have given to answering all these questions. It is hard work and from what I’ve read, you do it admirably.
    Thank you,
    Jenn

  • Steve Bruecker June 5, 2014, 9:41 am

    Jenn,
    Thanks for your words of encouragement. I truly love my Witness friends and hope and pray they will find the one true Jesus Christ.

    Steve

  • Howard June 7, 2014, 6:18 am

    Steve,

    I had a lot to say to your latest comment, so I broke them up into three parts. To start with, you had said:

    “KS is demonstrably an abbreviated form of KurioS, which is the default presumption, in that the original text said either kurios or KS.”

    I don’t believe it is that simple. There has been a dispute about the nature of nomina sacra, whether they represent a mere shorthand or these overlined words indeed bear a sacred meaning. Here are some of those scholars that think they have special meaning.

    The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal, L. W. Hurtado, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 117, No. 4 (Winter, 1998), pp. 655-673

    “In contrast, the nomina sacra do not really serve as abbreviations at all. They are not intended to conserve space or labor. They appear more frequently in Christian manuscripts prepared for formal usage, such as public reading, the Christian equivalent of “literary” texts. As already mentioned, the words involved are a relatively fixed set of terms, all of which have fairly obvious religious meaning. The aim is clearly to express religious reverence, to set apart these words visually in the way they are written. In the nomina sacra, we encounter a fascinating manifestation of ancient Christian devotion, and these scribal symbols are perhaps the earliest surviving artifacts of an emerging Christian material culture.”

    “There is no undisputably Jewish manuscript in which any of the nomina sacra are written as we find them in undeniably Christian manuscripts. But it seems likely that Jewish reverence for the divine name, and particularly the Jewish practice of marking off the divine name reverentially in written forms, probably provides us with the key element in the religious background that early Christians adapted in accordance with their own religious convictions and expressed in the nomina sacra.”

    “More recently, Kurt Treu has registered his reference for the theory that the nomina sacra began among Jews prior to Christian usage and initially included both theos and kurios, written as contractions with a horizontal stroke placed over them to distinguish them in Greek texts where they served as translation equivalents for YHWH,’. Christians took up the idea and quickly broadened it to include “the remaining persons of their Trinity” and then a wider list of religious terms.”

    Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6:393). New York: Doubleday.

    “A conjecture is that the forms  and  were first created by non-Jewish Christian scribes who in their copying the LXX text found no traditional reason to preserve the Tetragrammaton. In all probability it was problematic for gentile scribes to write the Tetragrammaton since they did not know Hebrew. If this is correct, the contracted surrogates  and  were perhaps considered analogous to the vowelless Hebrew Divine Name, and were certainly much easier to write.

    Once the practice of writing the Tetragrammaton into copies of the Greek OT was abandoned and replaced by the practice of writing  and , a similar development no doubt took place in regard to the quotations of the Greek OT found in the NT. There too the Tetragrammaton was replaced by the surrogates  and . In the passing of time, the original significance of the surrogates was lost to the gentile Church. Other contracted words which had no connection with the Tetragrammaton were added to the list of nomina sacra, and eventually even  and  came to be used in passages where the Tetragrammaton had never stood.

    It is possible that some confusion ensued from the abandonment of the Tetragrammaton in the NT, although the significance of this confusion can only be conjectured. In all probability it became difficult to know whether  referred to the Lord God or the Lord Jesus Christ. That this issue played a role in the later Trinitarian debates, however, is unknown.”

    Aune, D. E. (2002). Vol. 52B: Word Biblical Commentary : Revelation 6-16. Word Biblical Commentary (805). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

    “Traube proposed that certain nomina sacra, i.e.,  and , arose in Judaism (Nomina Sacra, 30, followed by Paap, Nomina Sacra, 125–26), but this view has been proven wrong (Roberts, Manuscript, 34). Traube also proposed that the nomina sacra constituted a Greek equivalent to the Hebrew tetragrammaton, to prevent the full disclosure of the sacred name of God (Nomina Sacra, 30–32), a view that has been refuted by Brown (SPap9 [1970] 7–12). Paap (Nomina Sacra, 124) argues that the nomina sacra originated with Jewish Christians with the abbreviation of θεός, since that word was the Greek equivalent to, YHWH. There is evidence that Alexandrian Jews occasionally wrote the tetragrammaton in gold letters (Ep. Arist. 176, followed by Ant. 12.89, who erroneously describes entire biblical rolls as written in gold; see Traube, Nomina Sacra, 21), which functioned to emphasize the divine name, a function achieved by leaving the tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters in Greek manuscripts of the LXX (Brown, SPap 7 [1970] 13–14). The uncial MS 022 of the Gospels (Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus), written in the sixth century A.D., has the names Lord, God, Jesus, Christ, Father, Spirit, and Son written in gold. In this respect the function of Christian nomina sacra was the same as some Jewish uses of the tetragrammaton, i.e., to emphasize the divine name by setting it apart from its context.

    Evidence from Greek ostraca and inscriptions indicates that abbreviation by contraction was well known in the Greco-Roman world (Nachmanson and Rudberg, referred to in Paap, Nomina Sacra, 3). The earliest evidence for the abbreviation of the name @Ιησοῦς as ιη (this is suspension rather than contraction) is found in Barn. 9:8 (ca. A.D. 100; see Clement of Alex. Strom. 6.11); this is a form occasionally found in later papyri, probably because of its numerological significance (Paap, Nomina Sacra, 93). The date for the appearance of most of the important nomina sacra (God, Lord, Spirit, Father, Person, Israel, and Jesus) is from the first half of the second century A.D. (Paap, Nomina Sacra, 119). Though he goes well beyond the evidence, Roberts supposes that the nomina sacra were a Christian innovation and speculates that the guidelines for abbreviating sacred names were laid down by the church in Jerusalem prior to A.D. 70, and that they represent an “embryonic creed” expressed by the primitive Christian community (Roberts, Manuscript, 46; see 26–48: “Nomina Sacra: Origins and Significance”).”

  • Howard June 7, 2014, 6:21 am

    Part 2

    You said: “You make a good point except in the NT manuscripts, the writers repeatedly used Kurios in place of YHWH.”

    The problem with your statement is the over generalized assumption. What “writers” are you referring to? Are you implying that you KNOW that the original authors of the NT documents used either kurios or KS? How can you possibly know that when the earliest manuscript evidence is from the late second century CE, around a 100 years after the original compositions? The truth is you can’t know that, at the very least, you can only believe that, through faith in the Bible’s textual reliability.

    Now before you get the idea that I am trying to cast doubt on the Bible’s reliability, I’m not. But there are some really strong arguments to believe that something strange happened regarding God’s name. Let me relate some of the most important ones and see if you have answers.

    The usual explanation is that the NT authors quoted from the Septuagint, which they say used kurios in place of YHWH. However, after the discovery of a number of Septuagint manuscript fragments ranging from 100 BCE to 70 CE, it was revealed that all these fragments did in fact use YHWH written in Hebrew characters within the Greek text. And were not talking about two or three occurrences, there are 77 occurrences of the name in these Greek fragments, with no substitutions. Therefore, what the actual manuscript evidence reveals is that prior to the 2nd century CE, all Septuagint manuscripts used the actual name, there is not one pre-2nd century manuscript that uses kurios or KS. In fact, even after the 2nd century, Jewish versions of the Septuagint continued to use the name in Hebrew characters while Christian versions incorporated nomina sacra. It should also be noted that no Septuagint manuscript from this time period ever used the full word kurios, only the name or the nomina sacra. Therefore, a pattern emerges, it would seem that Jews continued to use the name in sacred writings, and Christians replaced it, and from the evidence, they replaced it with nomina sacra and not the word kurios. And if I am not mistaken, the authors of the NT were Jewish, and the only known Septuagint available in the region, had the name in it.

    Now this whole idea about the Septuagint started a long time ago, when the only available evidence was the 4th and 5th century Septuagint manuscripts, which in fact did not use the name, but nomina sacra and kurios. And these scholars assumed that these manuscripts were reliable representations of the Jewish Septuagint from the 1st century and the NT authors quoted from it. And as you can see, that is no longer the case. And to further this idea, scholars reasoned that the name was substituted in the Septuagint because of the Jewish ban on the name. However, this ban was only on the pronunciation of the name, there was never a ban on writing the name. Now to top it all off, the reason for this ban according to the Jewish encyclopedia is, “the Rabbis forbade the utterance of the Tetragrammaton, to guard against desecration of the Sacred Name”. Now you have to remember these were the same religious leaders that rejected Jesus, and were condemned by God because they followed the ideas of men rather than God. Therefore, does it seem reasonable that Jesus’ followers accepted this Jewish ban on the name? Now for the really odd one, a lot of people say Jesus too did not pronounce the name either, and according to your theology, you believe Jesus is God. So was one part of God afraid to defile another part of God?

    Now some scholars still believe the original and authorized Septuagint did not use the name. However, with no supporting evidence, it is pure speculation. The same holds true for the NT. The original books were written between 50 CE and 100 CE, and the earliest manuscript evidence is usually dated to around 175 CE. That is a 75 to 125 year gap with no manuscript evidence. Interestingly, during that same time period, the manuscript evidence shows that the Septuagint evolved from using YHWH to KS. Is it so unreasonable to believe the NT evolved the same way, since the same Christians using KS in the Septuagint, that we KNOW stood for YHWH, also used KS in the NT to stand for YHWH? What did KS in the NT mean to these early Christians? Was it simply an abbreviation of kurios or was it a siglum to represent God’s name?

    See you are missing the main point. You are simply assuming that the Septuagint used kurios for YHWH, then the NT authors quoted the Septuagint, or simply used kurios themselves, then someone later abbreviated them to KS. Yes, it’s a nice neat package response to the problem. However, the first assumption is wrong. The second assumption is speculation. The last assumption is speculation as well. Shouldn’t a theory or hypothesis follow the evidence? If so, you can not say that KS is merely an abbreviation of kurios, because the evidence shows that the use of kurios never predated the use of KS. The evidence seems to suggest that it was the siglum KS itself that replaced YHWH in the Septuagint. So what your missing is, did this siglum have special meaning to those who put it in the Septuagint? If it did, then why would they make a confusing mess by using it in the NT for a completely different reason, such as an abbreviation for kurios? It makes more sense that it was put into the NT to represent the same meaning that it did in the Septuagint. Which was a sign to show that it meant YHWH. You have to remember, it was not like it is today, where no one cares about God’s name. It was one of the most important things in Judaism. And the NT authors would have felt the same way since they were Jews as well. Then in the early second century, when gentiles Christians started to outnumber Jewish Christians, the name was relegated to a siglem, then basically forgotten all together.

    You might be asking yourself, why would God allow his name to go missing, well, maybe to fulfill these Scriptures.

    (Psalm 83:16) “Fill their faces with dishonor, That people may search for your name, O YHWH.”

    (Psalm 105:3, 4) “Make your boast in his holy name. Let the heart of those seeking YHWH rejoice. Search for YHWH and his strength. Seek his face constantly.”

    (Ezekiel 39:7) “And my holy name I shall make known in the midst of my people Israel, and I shall no more let my holy name be profaned; and the nations will have to know that I am YHWH, the Holy One in Israel.”

  • Howard June 7, 2014, 6:28 am

    Part 3

    I know you disagree with the use of Jehovah in the NT, but your objection is misplaced. The name was not added to the NWT New Testament because they think it was originally in the Greek manuscripts. Everyone knows that the name itself does not appear in any manuscripts, apart from the short form Yah. Below is a quote from my book as to the reasons the name was used. Not to mention that the name Jehovah, Yahweh are given as lexical definitions of the word kurios in many Greek lexicons.

    “It is well known that this Greek word [kurios] was used to translate the Hebrew words Adon and Adonai in the LXX. So we know that this Greek word caries the meaning of these Hebrew words. This Greek word was also used as a title for God, and as a substitute for his name, YHWH. And again, it is used of Jesus in the New Testament. It is unfortunate that the very title of God came to be used as the substitute for his name. This has made it considerably harder to distinguish between God’s title and his name.

    Therefore, the word kurios has developed a two fold meaning, one of them being Jehovah’s title of Lord as an authority over others, and the second, being a replacement for his personal name. The replacement of kurios for the name YHWH was never intended to imply another name for God. The Theological dictionary of the New Testament has the following to say on the subject.

    The word kurios, “lord,” as a name for God in the LXX is a strict translation only in cases where it is used for adon or adonai (in the ketīb). As a rule, however, it is used as an expository equivalent for the divine name YHWH. It is thus meant to express what the name, or the use of the name, signifies in the original.

    The word kurios is meant to reflect the meaning of the name and not to replace it with a new significance. This makes the use of kurios as a substitute for God’s name a sort of idiom of the Greek speaking Jews and Christians that used it. This use certainly falls under the definition of an idiom.

    idiom (Latin: idioma, “special property”, f. Greek: ἰδίωμα – idiōma, “special feature, special phrasing”, f. Greek: ἴδιος – idios, “one’s own”) is an expression, word, or phrase that has a figurative meaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made. (The Oxford Companion to the English Language (1992) pp.495–96)

    The idiom that the word kurios conveys, is the divine name and its significance. Under these circumstances, it is entirely legitimate for a translator to use an English representation of the divine name in the New Testament in places where kurios is considered an idiom of the divine name. One could argue that the use of kurios in the NT was from the original authors and therefore has the backing of God, and we should not change it. Which is in fact the argument of many. However, there is no evidence for this argument at present. We do not possess any original autographs or any direct statements from the authors that they were inspired to alter the name in this manner. We only possess manuscript copies, a number of years removed from the originals. The only real criticism would be whether a particular verse corresponded to this idiom or not.

    Therefore, the NWT has not altered the word of God, but has endeavored to express the intended meaning of the word kurios more clearly by recognizing this Greek idiom where others have not.”

    Vine’s Dictionary of Bible Words: Lord – (A-1,Noun, 2962, Kurios) properly an adjective, signifying “having power” (kuros) or “authority,” is used as a noun, variously translated in the NT, ‘Lord,’ ‘master,’ ‘Master,’ ‘owner,’ ‘Sir,’ a title of wide significance, occurring in each book of the NT save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used: (g) Kurios is the Sept. and NT representative of Heb. Jehovah (‘Lord’ in Eng. versions), see Matt. 4:7; Jas. 5:11, e.g., of adon, Lord, Matt. 22:44, and of Adonay, Lord, Matt. 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Pet. 1:25.

    The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (2962) Kurios; the Lord Jehovah, Matt. 1:22.

    International Standard Bible Encyclopedia – Lord, The Lord It represents the most sacred Hebrew name for God, as their covenant God, Yah, Yahweh…Our English versions distinguish the 3 main uses of the term thus: (1) “LORD” represents the Hebrew Yahweh, Septuagint Kurios , except where ‘Ădhōnāy or ‘Ādhon is combined with Yahweh (= “Lord God”); the American Standard Revised Version has in these examples employed the name as it is found in the Hebrew, simply transliterated. (2) “Lord” corresponds to ‘Ădhōnāy, ‘Ādhon, Mārē’, also Greek Kurios (see (1)), and Despotēs, for which the American Standard Revised Version has always “Master” in either the text or the margin. (3) “Lord” (“lord”) translates all the remaining 8 Hebrew words and the Greek words except Despotēs. It is thus seen that Kurios corresponds to all three forms of writing the English term.

    McKenzie’s Dictionary of the Bible, Lord: The use of Kyrios in the Synoptic Gospels…is also a designation of God in quotations from the LXX or as a substitute for the name of God, and in the common profane sense of owner or master. page 517.

    A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament, In the NT, likewise, KURIOS, when used as a name of God…most usually corresponds to YHWH Jehovah. J. Parkhurst, page 347.

    A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, Kurios: c. This title is given a. to God, the ruler of the universe (so the Sept. for adonai, eloah, elohim, Jehovah and Jah). J.H. Thayer, 1889 ed., page 365.

    A Greek-English Lexicon, Kurios: B….4. O KURIOS, = Hebr. Yahweh, LXX Ge. II. 5, al. Liddel and Scott 1968 ed., on page 1013.

  • Octavia June 20, 2014, 12:36 pm

    Hey, I’ve been studying the KJV bible ever since I was younger and my boyfriend is a JW so they study the NWT and I’ve been trying to prove to him and his mother how Jesus and God are indeed the same person and how their bible differs from the KJV any direct scriptures and advice on these two topics I can prove to them from the KJV bible ?? Please

  • Steve Bruecker June 20, 2014, 3:54 pm

    Octavia,
    First, I gave some valuable background information on the NWT in the article you read and commented on that will help. Secondly, Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The definition of the Trinity is one God subsists in 3 persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; co-equal and co-eternal. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons of the one God. This is vastly different from Watchtower theology. I strongly suggest reading from the following series of posts on the Trinity and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    – Loving the Trinity: http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/4-loving-the-trinity/
    – Sharing with a Jehovah’s Witness: http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/6-sharing-with-jehovahs-witness/
    – Challenging a Jehovah’s Witness: http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/18-challenging-a-jehovahs-witness/

    All these series of posts are icons on the front page. Start with Loving the Trinity because it will help you to fully be able to articulate accurately the Biblical view of the Trinity.

    Steve

  • Vernon August 22, 2014, 6:41 am

    Howard, your intellectual reasoning greatly deceives you. Your interpretations and summations are biblically inaccurate. Steve’s points were well stated and accurate. No need to debate.

  • Summer October 31, 2014, 9:37 pm

    Jesus said that if we knew the Father we would know Him. Just reading Isiah we see over and over how God refers to himself as the Savior and becoming a Savior for us. Immanuel= means God with us! Jesus means Savior. God is our Savior and came in the flesh and no one even recognized him. How terribly sad. Also the JW founder was a Freemason and a false prophet so all theology aside, that alone should steer you away, just read Deuteronomy where The LORD tells Moses how to tell is someone is a real prophet or not. I’m so thankful the Bible is plain as day for someone even as simple as me!

  • Skaiter December 14, 2014, 2:04 pm

    Yes, the founder of JW, Russel, was a Freemason, which is occultic( you can browse on that if you like), I have just one more word for you, please visit this Website:
    http://www.bible.ca/jw.htm

  • Skaiter December 14, 2014, 2:06 pm

    I have just one word; check this website:
    http://www.bible.ca/jw.htm

Leave a Comment

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

About Us | Statement of Faith | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Site Map
Never Miss an UPDATE Simply Enter Your Best Email 
x