Several parts are inaccurate. This translation replaces the use of the word LORD with the word JEHOVAH in the New Testament. The New World translators use the Septuagint as one of their justifications. Let me explain. The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the common Greek spoken when Jesus was on earth, when the Roman Empire existed, etc (2000+ years ago). It was your common Greek translation, if you were alive at that time. And these Greek translators rendered the Hebrew word for Jehovah (adonai) into the Greek word "kurios". So, henceforth, the New World Translators argue this as justification to do the same in the New Testament. So wherever you see "kurios" (Lord) in the New Testament, it will often be translated not "Lord", but rather as "Jehovah." All well and good, you might think at first. Except for major inconsistencies: The Jehovah Witnesses do not believe that Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh, that He is the Almighty God incarnate, come to us as a babe in a manger. So guess what? In most places where "kurios" (Lord) is uses for Jesus, they will NOT translate it as "Jehovah", although it's the same exact Greek word. Their dogma overrules this consistency of translation. A great case in point is the conversion of Saul (later known as Paul) on the road to Damascus. Acts 9 records that Saul was struck down by a great light, and he heard a voice from heaven saying, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:4) Now Saul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, a Pharisee of great zeal. He would definitely have realized this was God. Immediately asked, "Who are you, Lord?" (Acts 9:5) Notice that in the New World translation, they translate it "Lord". The same "kurios" that is rendered as "Jehovah" in so many places in the New Testament is rendered as "Lord" here. Why? Because had they translated it consistently as "Jehovah" like they do in other places, they'd have to render Saul's question as "Who are you, Jehovah?", to which Jehovah replies, "I AM JESUS, whom you are persecuting." (Acts 9:5) This would go against their denominal theology, and since they won't entertain changing their doctrine against Jesus Christ, even if the truth smacked them in the face, they'll break with the consistency of their own translation where it suits them. In my opinion, not only is this inaccurate, it is deceitful. __________________ 10/27/2005 - In answer to Hedrick's criticism and biased rating (since he is JW): David Hedrick: Check the preface to your Bible, where it explains why the name Jehovah was removed and replaced with 'Lord'. TulsaDavid: The early church knew that the Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Jesus of the New Testament. That is because they received a revelation of Who Jesus is, which is the very Rock His church is built upon. Mind you, I am monotheistic. But the monotheistic fallacy of the JW heresy I reject. The revelation that God Himself, not some 2nd person of a later-developed triune philosophy, was manifested in flesh as Jesus Christ (I Tim 3:16) is the Rock that His church is built upon. The name "Jehovah" was the supreme revelation of God in the Old Testament, with the particular connotation that the Almighty God was specifically the Deliverer and Savior (Exodus 6). The New Testament revelation of God is consistent with the OT emphasis on one God, but it adds the new revelation that God has come in flesh to be our personal savior. Thus the highest name is "Jesus", which literally neans "Jehovah-Savior" (Isaiah 12). That's why the tru apostolic church baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and not in a triune formula. The JW's have stopped short of this revelation. But it is Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Almighty, the Alpha and Omega, the true God and eternal life. __________________ 10/28/2005 - Criticisms and responses: Shallea: (John 1:18) "No man has seen God at any time", seems so simple anyone should understand. TulsaDavid: Don't forget the rest of that verse " ... The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." God is infinite, absolutely, past finding out. Scripture says His riches are unsearchable. But, thankfully, He has chosen to identify Himself to us, to reveal Himself to us. And He did that in temporary, various and different ways in the OT, but in these last days, He has revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ, the express image of His person. Not a 2nd person, not a 3rd, but God Himself manifested in humanity. This is how the "Son" declared the "Father", not as some 2nd person declaring some 1st person. You'll never find one single verse that specifies these distinctions as being persons. Not one. Anonymous: 1 Cor.15:24 "when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father" written by Paul/Saul, Jesus is not God. TulsaDavid: I see you are substituting some words in this verse. It accurately reads "when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father". The pronoun "his" is not there. The conjunction "and" is not there. And you're force-fitting a definition that this means Jesus is not God, and that is not there. Rightly divide the word. Isa 9:6 says that Jesus is "the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father." Those are definitions, direct equations of Who Jesus is.

One of the core points of contention is the first chapter of John's gospel. The reason this is such a big issue is because both faiths are dependent upon the doctrine that comes out of this passage. In particular, the translation of verse 1 is different between the mainstream christian bibles and the NWT bible. The mainstream versions translate v1 roughly as: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." The NWT version translates almost the same, exept it says "and the Word was *a* god". Here we find a very big doctrinal difference, because the two passages ascribe completely different properties to 'the Word'. In one, the Word is God - which is a foundation of the Trinity doctrine. In the other, the Word is a god - which indicates separateness from *the* God. There is no specific scripture in the bible that says "there is a trinity of father, son and holy spirit", however there are many passages of the bible that can be interpreted to point towards a single, triune God who has different aspects or 'persons' of Himself that he reveals to us individually. However, I would like to point out an issue with the first chapter of John. This passage is used to argue that Jesus is/isn't God. I would point out, though, that to begin with this passage is not talking about Jesus. His name is not mentioned until verse 17. Prior to this, it is referring to a being who is known as "the Word". Who is this Word? The original Greek word there is 'logos', and is interpreted by scholars to mean the revealed Word of God - as opposed to 'rhema', which is the spoken Word, and 'graphos', which is the written Word. 'logos' seems to refer to God's Word as a living entity, which raises some questions: If God's Word is a living entity, is it a part of him or separate from him? Since the bible says we are created in the exact image of God, I believe we can look to ourselves for answers. Our 'word' is a part of us. Indeed in Matthew 15, Jesus specifically states that what comes out of our hearts defiles us - and he is referring here to our words. If our word comes from within our hearts like he says here, then it is a fair indication that our word is a part of us. I think it would be logical to conclude that God's Word comes from His 'heart'. If God's Word is a part of him, then can it exist without him? Does our word exist without us? If Neil Armstrong had never been born, his famous words upon setting foot on the Moon would never have been spoken. The same statement may have been made, but it wouldn't be *his* word. If God did not exist, then his Word would never have existed either... If God's Word is a part of him, can it act independently of him? My words can never contradict me. Not ever. They say exactly what I intend them to say. An insult will never come out as a compliment - unless I make it that way. I believe that if God's Word is a part of him, then it can never, ever contradict him or do anything independent of him. Now it is interesting to read further into John 1, because it specifically says this: "And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth." So this entity called 'the Word' is said to become flesh - human. It says that we (humanity) saw his glory, and that his glory was that of a father's only son... Here is where the connection with Jesus begins. Firstly Jesus is referred to as the 'only begotten Son of God'. The verse above refers to this 'Word made flesh' as having glory as a father's only son. It also says that nobody has ever seen the Father (God), but the Son who is in the bosom of God, has made him known. Again now this refers to Jesus. There is a direct connection between this 'logos' and Jesus, as the bible tends to indicate that Jesus is this 'logos' (revealed Word) made flesh. Now, the big issue here is with whether Jesus (that Word made flesh) is a part of God, or apart from (separate from) God. By my understanding, the JW doctrine places Jesus as a created being - the first created being of all (an interpretation of firstborn of all creation). The mainstream church places Jesus as God in the flesh (i.e. his Word made flesh), who is firstborn of all creation by virtue of being the firstborn child of God, who makes us all his family by redemptive adoption. Again this raises questions. If Jesus is a created being, when was he created? HOW was he created? Secondly, if Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, and he is created, then it means that the Word of God was created... How? When? I specifically ask how, because Genesis specifically records God's method of creation. Apart from when he formed Man from the dust of the earth and breathed life into his nostrils, every other time he created by his Word! He spoke! If the Word was created at some stage, does this mean that beforehand God was mute? If he was mute, and his primary method of creation is by speaking his Word, how did he create his Word? JW doctrine takes Jesus' statement that 'he can do nothing apart from the Father' as a confession of subordination or lesser status - but it can also be interpreted as a confession of his oneness with God - as I questioned before - if God's Word is a part of him, can it do anything apart from him? If Jesus is God's Word made flesh, could he do anything contradictory to or apart from the Father who he is a part of? The bible says in Genesis that God created all of creation. Then in John 1 it says that the Word created all of creation - it makes sense, because God created by speaking his Word. Then in Corinthians Paul says that Jesus created all of creation - this seems again to indicate that Jesus is the Word of God. There is a verse in the KJV of the bible that talks about 3 that witness in heaven - Father, Word and Holy Spirit, and that these three are one. It is not in any other translation of the bible. This verse is found as a margin note in one specific ancient New Testament scroll. Scholars have researched this and deemed that it is a genuine addition, and not fraudulent. I mention this because it may come up in discussion, and I want people to be aware of it. If genuine, then it does point towards a 'triune' God. Indeed, if we look at the Son of God as the Word of God made flesh, then we can see that a Father, Son, Holy Spirit trinity fits with a Father, Word, Holy Spirit trinity. Either way, debating the intricacies of one little particle (the word 'a') while ignoring who the passage is talking about, is like straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel... *** To answer the begotten/created question: We were created. We were formed from the dust of the earth and God breathed life into our nostrils (by 'we' I refer to the human race). That's where the bible says our origin is. God formed Adam (supposedly fully grown) and gave him life by breathing life into his nostrils. This is important to understand because Jesus was not created this way. He was directly fathered by God - to beget means (primarily of a male) to procreate or generate offspring: to father. Humans were created, and are born out of that creation through human parents. Jesus was fathered by God, and was born out of that divine conception through a human mother but a God father. No, God did not have sex with Mary. The bible says that his Holy Spirit caused the conception of Jesus within her womb. One thing that needs to be understood about the physical human man Jesus is that he had a beginning. Jesus Christ - the physical human being - did not always exist. His spirit and soul - the Word of God - did always exist, but the physical man was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary, somewhere between 4BC and 6AD. This does not preclude Theophanies - supposed pre-incarnation appearances of Christ. All it means is that it was the Word of God appearing, rather than the physical man Jesus. As for the timing of it - I believe that Jesus existed as the Word of God - who is God. The bible says that God has no beginning. He has existed for eternity, and will exist for eternity. I believe his Word always existed as well, as part of him. However, Jesus Christ, the human incarnation of the Word of God, had a definite temporal beginning. The bible does say that he will have no end - that he will exist for eternity. In fact, the bible says that we will all exist for eternity - even if we did have a beginning - some of us will just have different destinations... I hope that gives some understanding to the 'begotten son' thing.

Kurios = Anointed..........not Jesus or Jehovah Jesus = Jehovah Salvation I guess no one had ever heard of a Greek/English Lexicon Ever heard of Strongs Concordance????

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?

( ... the following information was provided to me from the head pastor of my old church) "For what grammatical reasons do we translate the second occurrence of the-os' as "... and the Word was God" as opposed to "... and the Word was a god" in John 1:1? For the same reason why we translate (as does the NWT) the verse "In THE beginning" and not "In a beginning." You see, there's no article (in the Greek) before the word "beginning". But everybody translates it with an article because of what it means. The "Reasoning From The Scriptures" (JW resource book) says: "whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone". OK, let's apply that. The verse translates like this: "In that which was by quality beginning..." -- in other words, not a particular beginning, but what was IN ESSENCE and QUALITY a beginning. Because the lack of an article speaks of the quality of something, we translate it in English with an article because that which is in essence the beginning must be THE beginning. Does that make sense? The NWT translates it with an article, showing the inconsistency of their use of Greek Grammatical rules. Apply this same concept to the phrase "The word was God." 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. He is saying that the Word is not just God by title or association, but in essence and quality. And of course he couldn't use an article because Jesus is not the Father. He is God, but He is not the same person as the Father, though both (along with the Holy Spirit) make up ONE God. Here is an example from the NWT: In [the] beginning (<-- NO article!) the Word was, and the Word was with God (<-- article), and the Word was a god (<-- NO article!). Why would they play favorites in their translating techniques?! Because the NWT applies its grammatical rules inconsistently AND an accurate translation wouldn't fit their theology." p.s. Don't be a coward, if you are going to rate this answer down ... give an explanation or PROVE TO ME THAT I AM WRONG! I am not worried. I am ASKING for it ... I just have a feeling that NO ONE is going to deliver it. SHAME.

There has been so much traffic on this question that i couldn't read it all, but i ask sincerely of those who criticize the NWT for using 'Jehovah' in the Christian Scriptures: Are you as critical of the many translations who translate YHWH as "LORD" nearly 7000 times. Are the NIV, RSV, NKJV, NASB, NEB, and a dozen others guilty of deception or faulty translation? If you will speak out as boldly against taking out God's name where we KNOW it belongs, you have gained some credibility in complaining about some inserting it where where they THINK it belongs. For those who defend removing it from the O.T. but rail against using it in the N.T., i ask this somewhat (but openly labeled)loaded question: What do you hate so much about God's chosen name that you can justify removing it, but not adding it? I await any reasoned response.

Inaccurate or deception? There are so many "errors" in the NWT translation but look a just one. the bible commands, Do not add or take away words. Rev 22:18,19 NWT. Also, do not adulterate the word of God 2Cor 4:2 NWT.Watchtower advice, Check the translation with a Greek interlinear such as their own.Lets do that and ask the questions,Do the society add words? Do they omit words? Do they alter the meaning of the Greek? Is the Greek translated consistently or are biased changes made?. The NWT translation of John 1:1. In John 1:1 NWT "THEOS" becomes "a God". i.e "the word was a god." The KIT appendix (page 1158-1160) explains that "THEOS" is rendered as "a god" because it is "anarthrous" i.e without the Greek definite article"O". This principle of translation should be applied consistently, is it?. In Mark 12:26,27 NWT, The "anarthrous "THEOS" is rendered twice as God and once as "a God" NOTE THE INCONSISTENCY, only 16 times out of 282 occurences of the anarthrous "THEOS" does the NWT render it as "god", "a god", "gods", or "godly". This means the society made up its own rule and then broke it 94 times out of a 100. THIS IS DECEPTION NOT TRANSLATION. The rule most Greek scholars accept is called "Colrule", which says, "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb, it does not need the article when it preceeds it" The "THEOS" in question in John 1:1 comes before the verb "was"and therefore does not need the definite article. B F Westcott, whose Greek text it is, says clearly "It is necessarily without the article in as much as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His person". (The Gospel According to John, p 63). The Watchtower Society`s transation of John 1:1 is the need to support a specific viewpoint.This is just one of THE DELIBERATE DECEPTIONS IN THE NWT.

Not THOUGHT to be...ARE. The places are numerous.Additions of "other" before statements such as that Jesus is Lord of all creation, the replacement of Kurios (Lord) with "Jehovah" (it is just not there in the Greek). The upshot is that there is a constant playing with the NT text to prove that the JW doctrines are right. You just cannot do that. That is a paraphrase, not a translation. Even the Roman Catholics do not play with the texts that say that there is no mediator between God and man, save Jesus, despite the fact that this contradicts RC doctrine. They, at least, know not to touch truth.