Evidence for God from Science

Is the JW bible (New World Translation) different than other bibles? NIV, NASB, KJV, etc.? More or less accurate? How is it different? Translated by the same people? What insures the accuracy of other bibles as opposed to the JW bible?

I don't have a lot of info on the NWT Bible but I own several because they have proven to be more accurate overall than most commonly known Bibles.

I also found a NWT Greek Interlinear that I find to be more accurate than Green's but I haven't compared it to Marshall's yet.

I did notice that with many texts which I believe speaks clearly on issues that JWs disagree with, their translation did not appear to be altered to support their view. However, there are some cases where I believe it appears some less accurate choice were made.

I should note that their rendering of John 1:1 is more accurate regardless of what all the opponents argue. The usage of pros ton theon in the sentence demonstrates the distinction that most deny - even though they didn't translate these particular words correctly. But that's another issue altogether.

I recommend the NWT as an addition to one's collection of various translations. It can often be purchased second hand in good shape for only a few dollars. The Greek Interlinear is harder to find but well worth getting - in my opinion.

R7-12

R7-12 is obviously a Jehovah's Witness. No one else would consider the NWT accurate. It has been changed in many places to fit their doctrine, JOhn 1:1 being one case. The Greek grammar is specific, the word was God is correct, not the word was a god, as the NWT incorrectly translates.
There are many sites that can show all the errors in the NWT. I will look some up if you want or you can search them for yourself. The only sites that uphold the NWT are JW sites. My advice, throw the NWT away and get a number of good translations.


Ray

R7-12:

I should know that their rendering of John 1:1 is more accurate...demonstrates the distinction that most deny--even though they didn't translate these particular words correctly.

If the translation is incorrect, why do you think it is more accurate?

Ray:

Could you link me to the sites, I've looked and haven't been able to find any good ones.

Most importantly: Any sites which discuss the translation sources of the NWT as opposed to others (KJV, etc.).

Anywhere where I can find the true/original Greek meaning of the words and today's bible (KJV, NIV) as opposed to NWT?

Reason: A JW told me that all Chrisitan bibles had "twisted" their translations to fit what Christians believe, and that the KJV agrees with the NWT, and that the NWT is completely accurate.

ray,

You have made an error in judgment concerning me when you falsely assumed I was a JW. I am not and never have been.

R7-12

Mystical,

You misquoted what I said, you wrote,

I should know that their rendering of John 1:1 is more accurate...demonstrates the distinction that most deny--even though they didn't translate these particular words correctly.

What I did say was,

I should note that their rendering of John 1: is more accurate regardless of what all the opponents argue. The usage of pros ton theon in the sentence demonstrates the distinction that most deny - even though they didn't translate these particular words correctly. But that's another issue altogether.

Your question to me was,

If the translation is incorrect, why do you think it is more accurate?

Good question.
The thrust of John 1:1 in the NWT version is more accurate but some of the words, particularly pros and God are not rendered properly.

It reads,
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (Watchtower and Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1984)

Below is a transliteration of the Greek and a direct translation,

en arche en logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
In beginning was logos and the logos was toward the theos and theos was the logos.

For clarity,
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was unto THE Theos and the Word was theos.

Pros ton theon denotes the subordinate position of the Word, who, although he is given to share in the same Divine Nature as the Father (as we are, 2 Peter 1:4), looks to, or towards THE God in subjection to Him and is thus not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father.

If one does a search of SGD 4314 pros, it will be clear it means to or toward and not with.

Also, the distinction between the one true Theos and one who is a subordinate theos also called the logos, is evident in the Greek. The definite article SGD 4314 ton precedes theon and thus refers to THE Theos, the one true Elohim. This fact indicates the addition of the indefinite article (a) before theos at the end of the verse, as in the NWT, is appropriate in that it provides the correct meaning of the text.

The Greek theos is equivalent to the Hebrew elohim.

The term TRUE Theos (or TRUE elohim — true God) does not imply that all others are necessarily false — although many are, it refers to the fact that only one theos or elohim has inherent immortality (1 Tim. 6:16, 1 John 5:20). Life comes from one source only — God, the Father. He gave life to His son the Christ and he was given authority to grant life to others by delegation of the Father.

The God of gods is the Father of the sons of God or bene elohim and He is the God and Father of Jesus Christ as it is written (Rom. 15:6, 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31, Eph. 1:3, Col. 1:3, 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:11, 1 Peter 1:3).

The angels are elohim or theos as bene elohim or sons of God. They do not have inherent immortality but are created spiritbeings. Likewise the adversary is also an elohim or theos and a bene elohim but again he is not THE Theos or ton theon and not the Elohim of Elohim or El of Elohim or El of El (1 Cor. 4:4, Deut. 10:17, Jos. 22:22, Psalm 136:2, Dan. 11:36).

A thorough study into the names and titles of God is really necesary to begin understanding how they are applied, to whom, and what the relationships between them are. A paper is available if anyone would like it that addresses all of this.

The rendering of John 1:1 in the NWT is thus more correct than most other translations but not as accurate as it could be.

What I've written above will likely not fit into most people's heads because it doesn't jive with the Trinitarianist theism forced on the Christians of Rome from the counsel of Constantinople if 381 CE.

Therefore I expect most will dismiss what I've written because it simply won't make sense to their Trinitarian mode of thinking.

You may disagree, but that doesn't change the facts.

R7-12

For a good critic of the New World translation and how it compares to others - http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm
For King James Bible with Strongs numbers and definitions
-http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs.html
For a good link to Greek and Hebrew lexicon -
http://www.studylight.org/lex/

The reason I said I thought you must be a Jehovah's Witness is that the New World Translation is the Jehovah Witness Bible. They are the only denomination that uses it. It was translated by members of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Ray

R7-12 wrote:Mystical,

You misquoted what I said, you wrote,

I should know that their rendering of John 1:1 is more accurate...demonstrates the distinction that most deny--even though they didn't translate these particular words correctly.

What I did say was,

I should note that their rendering of John 1: is more accurate regardless of what all the opponents argue. The usage of pros ton theon in the sentence demonstrates the distinction that most deny - even though they didn't translate these particular words correctly. But that's another issue altogether.

Your question to me was,

If the translation is incorrect, why do you think it is more accurate?

Good question.
The thrust of John 1:1 in the NWT version is more accurate but some of the words, particularly pros and God are not rendered properly.

It reads,
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (Watchtower and Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1984)

Below is a transliteration of the Greek and a direct translation,

en arche en logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
In beginning was logos and the logos was toward the theos and theos was the logos.

For clarity,
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was unto THE Theos and the Word was theos.

Pros ton theon denotes the subordinate position of the Word, who, although he is given to share in the same Divine Nature as the Father (as we are, 2 Peter 1:4), looks to, or towards THE God in subjection to Him and is thus not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father.

If one does a search of SGD 4314 pros, it will be clear it means to or toward and not with.

Also, the distinction between the one true Theos and one who is a subordinate theos also called the logos, is evident in the Greek. The definite article SGD 4314 ton precedes theon and thus refers to THE Theos, the one true Elohim. This fact indicates the addition of the indefinite article (a) before theos at the end of the verse, as in the NWT, is appropriate in that it provides the correct meaning of the text.

The Greek theos is equivalent to the Hebrew elohim.

The term TRUE Theos (or TRUE elohim — true God) does not imply that all others are necessarily false — although many are, it refers to the fact that only one theos or elohim has inherent immortality (1 Tim. 6:16, 1 John 5:20). Life comes from one source only — God, the Father. He gave life to His son the Christ and he was given authority to grant life to others by delegation of the Father.

The God of gods is the Father of the sons of God or bene elohim and He is the God and Father of Jesus Christ as it is written (Rom. 15:6, 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31, Eph. 1:3, Col. 1:3, 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:11, 1 Peter 1:3).

The angels are elohim or theos as bene elohim or sons of God. They do not have inherent immortality but are created spiritbeings. Likewise the adversary is also an elohim or theos and a bene elohim but again he is not THE Theos or ton theon and not the Elohim of Elohim or El of Elohim or El of El (1 Cor. 4:4, Deut. 10:17, Jos. 22:22, Psalm 136:2, Dan. 11:36).

A thorough study into the names and titles of God is really necesary to begin understanding how they are applied, to whom, and what the relationships between them are. A paper is available if anyone would like it that addresses all of this.

The rendering of John 1:1 in the NWT is thus more correct than most other translations but not as accurate as it could be.

What I've written above will likely not fit into most people's heads because it doesn't jive with the Trinitarianist theism forced on the Christians of Rome from the counsel of Constantinople if 381 CE.

Therefore I expect most will dismiss what I've written because it simply won't make sense to their Trinitarian mode of thinking.

You may disagree, but that doesn't change the facts.

R7-12

Clearly you are not trinitarian. Equally clear is that you are very knowledgeable and intelligent. I find that I agree with many of your posts (this one is a notable exception). Just so everyone knows from what point of view your opinions hail (including myself), may I ask what (religion) are you?. Of the non-trinitarian christians I know of only 3 (and their offshoots): JWs, Mormons, and Christadelphians. Could you give us a little background info? Thanks. By the way, I'm Catholic.

Tampering With The Bible

Under the leadership of Nathan H. Knorr (1905-1977) the WT Society put away date setting for a time and switched to a different strategy. Since many of their teachings are easily refuted by key verses in the King James Bible, Knorr set out to publish a different Bible for Jehovah's Witnesses to use. The WT Society Bible, called the New World Translation (NWT), blatantly alters many verses that show the errors of Watchtower teaching. The single best example of this is John 1:1, which in the King James Version clearly declares Jesus' deity — "the Word was God." The WT Society denies the deity of Christ, so the NWT renders this phrase "the Word was a god."

Another example is found in the Old Testament book of Zechariah, chapter 12 verse 10. Jehovah God is speaking and says, "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" understood by Christians as a predictive reference to the crucifixion. Recognizing that Jesus' fulfillment of this prophecy would mean that he is Jehovah God, the Watchtower Society has changed this verse in the NWT to read "they will certainly look to the One whom they pierced through," thus eliminating another reference to the deity of Jesus Christ. The Society made similar changes to many other verses relating to the deity of Christ (Colossians 1:16-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8). They have also altered verses that expose the WT Society's false teaching on subjects like the reality of eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46), and the personality of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:14-16; 1 Timothy 4:1; Jude 19). In this way the Watchtower Society gives Jehovah's Witnesses and potential converts the illusion that the Bible supports its erroneous doctrines.
http://www.irr.org/English-JW/jwfacten.html






Example: Exodus 3:14

"I am" changed to "I shall prove to be."

The revision clouds the connection between God's self-proclaimed title and Jesus' proclamation of being the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus. Misleading Revisions in the New World Translation

They have added words to Scripture, which changes the meaning of the texts to agree with their theology. Notice the Watchtower's rendering of Colossians 1:16,17, where the word "other" has been added four times to the text, completely changing its meaning. When Paul wrote those passages that the Son created all things, it is obvious that the Son was not himself created. The Watchtower, however, believes that the Son is also a created being and has therefore added "other" - not found in the Greek Biblical text at all - to make it appear that the Son is also a creature. As mentioned before, the Translation Committee has added the word "a" to John 1:1 to make the Son a creature rather than God Himself. Take note also of the same deceitfulness displayed in Philippians 2:9 where the word "other" is again added, when it is not found or even suggested in the original Greek. The Worlds Most Dangerous Book!!

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Let's apply the Watchtower history to Moses, or Noah, and Lot. If Moses told his people every year that God was going to deliver them from bondage and Moses got them all the way to the Red Sea only to have Pharaoh slaughter them. How many of Gods people would listen to Moses each and every time God didn't come through with his promise. None. How about Noah. What if Noah built an ark every time God told him he was going to flood the Earth and then God didn't deliver? Let's apply the Watchtower history to Lot. What if Lot told Sodom and Gomorra every year that God was going to destroy them and it didn't come about year after year. These men would have told God to take a hike. I will not be your fool anymore, as each JW should tell WTBS to do. But God did deliver each and every time he gave these men his word. The bible is full of God coming through to his promise. So what does all this mean? Simple. God has nothing to do with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. He has not come through for them one time in over 200 years of false predictions. This means God didn't tell the Watchtower that the battle of Armageddon was going to happen each and every wrong forecast foretold by WTBS. The WTBS instead, have made fools out of the JW's. God does not make fools, or false prophets out of his followers. He didn't Moses, or Noah, or Lot, did he. Nor does God appreciate the WTBS trying to make a fool out of him, which is exactly what the WTBS has tried to do. The WTBS is not Gods chosen organization. The WTBS instead have made any and all teachings out of the JW's mouth's false doctrines and invalid. Dead and void.


http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/ha ... ts_pt2.htm

R7:

I'm going to have to take issue with your transliteration and translation, though the former is a much smaller than the latter. Where are you getting your Greek from? I'll quote from the UBS 4th ed., which is the current standard in Greek scholarship:

John 1:1 (transliterated): "En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

Now, your primary disagreement, translation wise, is that "pros" should be rendered "to" or "towards" and cannot be renderd "with." From where are you getting your information, because the word over 700 times in the NT, many times meaning "with." I found dozens of instances it has been rendered that way. A few examples: Matt. 13:56, Matt. 26:55, Mark 6:3, Mark 9:19, Luke 9:41, Acts 11:2, Acts 15:2, 1 Cor. 2:3, 1 Cor. 16:6, Gal. 1:18, Gal. 4:18, 1 Thess. 3:4, 2 Thess. 3:1, Phm. 1:13, Heb. 10:16, 1 John 1:2.

The other common word meaning "with" is meta, but in order to be "with" it has to take its object in the genetive case, so grammatically, John couldn't use that here . . .

The traditional translation is absolutely wooden. Probably, the best way to actually translate it and get the very same idea is, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and what God was, the Word was."

Just my two cents worth . . .

Hi Byblos,

One might refer to the teaching I hold concerning the Godhead as Subordinationist Unitarian. It is the same teaching the apostles held concerning God and His son the Christ whom He sent (John 17:3).

I believe in every word that proceeds from the mouth of our heavenly Father including His law and commandments (Matt. 4:4).

This response would likely lead you to ask if I keep the various civil laws etc. given to Israel. I would respond that I try to live according to the spirit or intent of these laws until all is restored by Christ at his coming. Then the entirety of the law of God will be known and kept, including the Sabbaths, New Moons and Feast of Tabernacles (Isaiah 2:3, Mic. 4:2, Isaiah 66:23, Zech. 16:14-19).

You might ask if I keep the law of sacrifice thinking that I would take that to mean the sacrificial ordinances within the temple system. I keep the law of sacrifice as Christ became the goal or purpose of it having paid the righteous requirement of the law for me with his life, so that I wouldn't have to pay it with my life. He became the Lamb of God fulfilling what the law required for sin — a perfect sacrifice for our breaking the law of God (1 John 3:4).

We are commanded to “sin no more”, thus I submit my ways to Him and He establishes my understanding of His ways (Prov. 16:3).

To be a true Christian we must be one of Christ's (Rom. 8:9). To be one of Christ's we must have the Spirit (Rom. 8:9). To receive the Spirit, we must obey God including His commandments (Acts 5:32, 1 John 3:24). We obey God by keeping His every word and His commands (Matt. 19:17, John 14:15; 15:9-10, 1 John 2:3-5, 22; 5:2-3, Rev. 12:17; 14:12, 22:14).

Jesus Christ learned to obey his Father through everything he suffered throughout his life including resisting temptation every day of his life (Heb. 5:8; 4:15).

I know I have made many seroius errors in my life and still make mistakes daily, but I wish only to believe and do and think and walk as Christ walked.

R7-12

Jbuza,

One could just as easily post the opinions of all the non-JW scholars who agree the NWT is one of the better translations - and there are quite a few.

What matters is truth, not how many supporters one can muster for one particular view.

R7-12

Jac,

You're free to take issue if you choose. Your position will obviously be biased because you hold the doctrine of the Trinity. I was also a Trinitarian once and then later a Binitarian for a number of years until my eyes were opened.

I don't expect to convince you or anyone else of anything. I'm just speaking what I've been taught by my heavenly Father.

From where are you getting your information, because the word over 700 times in the NT, many times meaning "with."

Take a look at some of the references you gave, you may notice that it is used to denote a closer, more specific concept than just “with”. And you may not.

Nevertheless, to answer your question about sources, Strong's is one.


SGD 4314 {pros}

a strengthened form of 4253; TDNT - 6:720,942; prep

(The Authorized Version has rendered it as follows),

AV — unto 340, to 203, with 43, for 25, against 24, among 20, at 11, not tr 6, misc 53, vr to 1; 726

Strong's defines it,

1) to the advantage of
2) at, near, by
3) to, towards, with, with regard to
(emphasis added).


Consider the implications of the following: The one true God is identified distinctly as ton theon (John 1:1). The Word who is the son of God is a theos or elohim (HB) and Satan the adversary is also a theos or elohim (2 Cor. 4:4).

Anyway, I'm not interested in debating over this or any issue. We are all free to ignore whatever we want for whatever reasons we choose to justify ourselves with — whether we are right or wrong.

Let's just be sure we are diligent in proving whether that which we have chosen is indeed true.

R7-12

r7-12 - I'm not surprised you don't want to carry on a discussion of the NWT, that's the response I got from the JW's that visited me. I asked them who translated the NWT and they said they didn't know, because the men asked to remain anonymous. I then asked how they could possibly believe a translation when they had no idea of the qualifications of those who translated it. By my understanding ( I am not a Greek scholar so I have to depend on reading others ) is that in John 1:1, the word was God, is translated incorrectly in the NWT because of their lack of understanding of the Greek grammar, not the words. Youi are correct in the literal words, but the way it is used grammatically is what makes it "God" and not "a god".

Ray