Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / Religions
  5. / Religions A - Z
  6. / Christian Religions
  7. / Christian Denominations
  8. / Jehovah's Witnesses
  9. / Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible

by Anonymous on October 23rd, 2005

Anonymous

Question

Help answer this question below.

Which parts of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, used by the Jehovah's Witnesses, are thought to be inaccurate?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. Showing one answer.

  • by anonymous on February 21st, 2006

    anonymous

    The most common complaint is the translation of John 1:1, where many Bibles say "the Word was God", the NWT says "the Word was a god".
    Just one letter or diacritic can significantly alter the meaning of this phrase, as one way indicates that the Word is the Almighty God, the other indicates he is godlike, but not the only true God or an inseperable part of that being. There would seem to be more support for the latter, since just before this it says "the Word was with God", it is not logical for one to say Xanderman was with Xanderman, is it? It is assumed that wherever I am, there too I am. I am not inseperable from myself, so there is no reason to indicate that I am not seperated from myself, but am accompanied by my very own being. Another consideration is the actual greek texts; the phrases which say "the Word was with God", and "the Word was God" do not have the same definite article preceeding the noun,"God", yet to be translated this way in English the translators use the same article. Including this article the text would read "the word was with the god and the word was the god", but that is not how it appears in the original, "the" does not appear before "God" in the second instance, so it can not be introducede and yet have an accurate translation. Having no definite article before it there should be none in the English phrase, and being different phrases in structure they should be translated differently.

    It should be understood that the Greek language has no indefinite article, it only has the definite article, so to insinuate an indefinite the article is simply absent, so any translation into English where there is no definite article must contain the indefinite article with the associated noun.

    This site does not allow for the display of the original language , so to view it and a complete explanation of this translation you can visit http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

    Anyways, a word for word literal translation of the greek text is

    in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word

    Note how the definite article precedes "god" in the first instance, but there is no definite article before the second "god". So the definite article must be used where there is one in the original Greek, but where there is no definite article in Greek, there is no definite article in English, so an indefinite article is introduced to make the speech meaningful and fluent, as it is done in every other place in the entire Bible, to correctly translate it as

    in a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word

    Note now the difference between "the God", and "a god"...with the indefinite article included in the english translation, as it is implied by the absence of a definite article in the greek phrase, entirely changes the meaning of the phrase, and removing it for fluency or any other consideration considerably alters the thought that is trying to be conveyed by the auther, a practice which is unacceptable to any honest language expert. So why has it been translated incorrectly in almost every Bible? Why, where the words are different in the Greek, are they translated the same in English?
    Perhaps the additional removal of Gods name in over 7000 places is an indication that these translations are imperfect. Perhaps the standard doctrinal practice of engaging in warfare prescribed by these groups is also an indication of their heart-felt desires and their use of the Bible to support killing their fellow man is also indicative of their honesty in translation and application of the scriptures?

    Comments

    • xanderman: where there is NO article it is describing the ESSENCE or QUALITY of something. The NWT translates the first part of John 1:1 as "In [the] beginning the Word was ..." ... now, there is NO article before the word BEGINNING ... but there is still a "THE" there. Why is it translated as "THE beginning" instead of "In that which was by quality beginning..."? ... because of what it MEANS! If something is IN ESSENCE and QUALITY a beginning ... it must be THE beginning! Right? That is how NWT ... and ... well, EVERYONE translates that part of the verse! Right? So ... why would JW's then avoid applying that same rule to the end of the verse in reference to Jesus (the Word)? There is NO article, which is referencing the ESSENCE or QUALITY of the Word ... The Bible is saying that the Word (Jesus) was continually (the tense of the verb) IN ESSENCE AND QUALITY God. That actually speaks more of the Deity of Christ than if John had used an article.

      brian_griffith

      by brian_griffith on December 31st, 2006

    • He is saying that the Word is not just God by title or association, but in essence and quality. Also, take a look at Exodus 3:14 where God calls Himself "I AM" ... and then take a look at John 8:58 where Jesus says "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."" ... then the Jews picked up stones to stone him because he had just blasphemed! Why would that make the Jews angry? Because Jesus called himself the same name that God called himself when speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai. That would have been BLASPHEMY to the extreme. ... I am eager to read your response.

      brian_griffith

      by brian_griffith on December 31st, 2006

    • Well Brian_griffith, with your logic, you better make it a foursome. Read 1Cor 15:10. Paul said "I am" twice.

      Texasescimo

      by Texasescimo on December 14th, 2009

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Which parts of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, used by the Jehovah's Witnesses, are thought to be inaccurate?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company