Part 2: A Response to Alleged New World Translation "Errors"
>John 14:14 - Word "me" is omitted - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons. (Refer to Mark 7:9)
Again, it seem that you are less than honest in your comments. Please notice the footnote to John 14:14 in the NWT:
"Ask," ADIt and in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23; P66NBWVgSyh,p, "ask me."
The NASB uses "me" in the text, but provides in a footnote:
Other ancient authorities lack "me."
The KJV, NKJV, NLT, the Unvarnished New Testament, and the Original New Testament by Schonfield do not use "me" in this verse. Does this mean that all of these versions are biased?
>John 17:3 - Greek verb "ginoskosin" ("to know, intimately) mistranslated as
"taking in knowledge of". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and
lexicons. (Compare this with the same verb used at Matthew 1:25, which the New
World Translation renders sexual "intercourse.")
Yes, and the footnote to John 17:3 in the NWT reads:
Or, "their knowing you." Gr., hi'na gi·no'sko·si se.
How is taking "in knowledge of you" different in meaning from "knowing you"? Does not "taking in knowledge" of someone lead to "knowing him"? Also the NWT gives the alternate translation that you complain has been deleted.
Other translations give Matthew 1:25 as:
NASB: "kept her a virgin"
NIV: "no union with her"
AB: "no union with her"
NAB: "no relations with her"
NRSV: "no marital relations with her"
NLT: "she remained a virgin"
NCV: "did not have sexual relation with her"
CEV: "did not sleep together"
Message: "did not consummate the marriage"
Is it your position that these versions also mistranslate Matthew 1:25? It must be your position, since these versions do not use "know."
>Acts 2:42 - Greek words "klasei tou artou" ("breaking of the bread") mistranslated as "taking of meals". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons. Acts 2:46 - Greek words "klontes arton" ("breaking bread") mistranslated as "took meals". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons. Acts 20:7 - Greek words "klasei arton" ("break bread") mistranslated as "have a meal". – See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons. The only reason apparent for this change is to mask the fact that the Apostles and the early church took communion or "The Lord's Evening Meal" more often than once a year. By returning this and other texts to a literal translation of the Greek, it becomes a fact that communion was taken weekly, and sometimes even daily.
This argument ignores the Scriptures themselves. "Breaking bread" or "eating a meal" is never equated to the Lord's Supper. There is no doubt that the Apostles ate dinner together, but this does not mean that each dinner was in commemoration of Christ's death. It must also be remembered that the Jewish feast of Passover, which the Lord's Supper replaced, was commemorated annually. If you study Christian history, you may come across a group called the Quartodecimans that did exactly that.
As regards the day for observing the Pascha [the Lord’s Evening Meal], the usage of the Quartodeciman churches of Asia was continuous with that of the Jerusalem church. In the 2nd century these churches at their Pascha on the 14th of Nisan commemorated the redemption effected by the death of Christ." Studia Patristica, Volume V, 1962, page 8.
>Acts 20:28 - The English word "Son" is added in brackets without any support in the Greek text. - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons.
I will begin with a quote from Rolf Furuli in The Role of Theology and Bias in Biblical translation:
[Referring to Acts 20:28]
The problem involved in translating this passage is the reference of the word "blood." Translations of this verse do differ, as seen in the following comparison:
NWT: "the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son]."
RSV: "the Church of the Lord which he obtained by his own blood."
Wainwright gives his view of the problem: "If the reading theos ["god," in the genitive case] is accepted, does this verse mean that God purchased the church with his own blood? It is difficult to imagine that the divinity of Christ should have been stated in such a blunt and misleading fashion." (A.W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament, London: S.P.C.K., 1962, p.74).
In trying to find a solution to this problem, the first point we have to consider is a textual one. Some Greek manuscripts have the rendering "the congregation of the Lord" while others have "the congregation of God." The first alternative would completely remove the problem because "the Lord" could either refer to the Father or to the Son. However, two important codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus 1209, have the rendering "of God," and because NWT seldom uses renderings other than those found in the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, they have chosen "of God."
This Greek tou haimatos tou idiou (word for word, "the blood of the [or 'his'] own") may be understood in two different ways. One way is to view the last two words "his own" as referring to "his blood," thus giving the meaning "his own blood." The other way to view "his own" as an ellipsis, referring to another person who is his own, which can be no other than his Son; this is the basis for the rendering "the blood of his own Son."
Countess says that NWT "by interpolating 'Son' in brackets, has taken a liberty with the text," (Countess, The JW's New Testament, p.60) but this simply IS NOT TRUE! (capitalization added, exclamation original) Countess himself quotes Metzger to substantiate that "his own" as an ellipsis for "his own son" is without NT parallel. (Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 481). Yet Metzger's reference to such a use in the Greek papyri is more than enough to show that the NWT translators followed sound translation principles when they made their choice. The example involving sparrows in Matthew 10:29, quoted in his book on page 151, namely, "not one of them fall to the ground without your Father's knowledge," where knowledge" is not in the Greek text but is implied, is parallel to "his own" and well illustrates the principle of ellipsis.
I think that there is little doubt about Metzger's theology, nor about his credentials.
Compare the material above with a commentary from the JW's Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures:
1903 "with the blood of His own Son" The Holy Bible in Modern English, by F. Fenton, London.
1934 "through the Blood of His own Son" The Documents of the New Testament Translated and Historically Arranged, by G. W . Wade, London.
1950 "with the blood of his own [Son]" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.
1966 "through the death of his own Son" Today's English Version, American Bible Society, New York.
1973 "by the death of his own Son" The Translator's New Testament, British and Foreign Bible Society, London.
1973 "with the blood of his own Son" The Better Version of the New Testament, by Chester Estes, Muscle Shoals, Alabama.
Grammatically, this passage could be translated as in the King James Version and Douay Version, "with his own blood." That has been a difficult thought for many. That is doubtless why ACDSyh (followed by Moffatt's translation) read "the congregation of the Lord," instead of "the congregation of God." When the text reads that way it furnishes no difficulty for the reading, "with his own blood." However, BVg read "God" (articulate), and the usual translation would be 'God's blood.'
The Greek words tou i·di'ou follow the phrase "with the blood." The entire expression could be translated "with the blood of his own." A noun in the singular number would be understood after "his own," most likely God's closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: "Before leaving [i'di·os] something should be said about the use of [ho i'di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1.11; 13.1; Ac 4.23; 24.23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 2028 'the blood of one who was his own.'"
Alternately, in The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2, London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: "it is by no means impossible that [hui·ou', "of the Son"] dropped out after tou i·di'ou, "of his own"] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind."
The New World Translation renders the passage literally, adding "Son" in brackets after idiou to read: "with the blood of his own [Son]." [KIT App p 1160] Remember that this reading also agrees with 1 John 1:7: "The blood of Jesus (God’s) Son cleanses us from all sin." (See Rev. 1:4-6; John 3.16)
For one last source that cannot be attacked based on its perceived heresy, I submit this post from Greek-L. Pay attention to the many resources that agree with what I have pointed out:
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 16:20:25 +0000
Author: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Acts 20:28 Whose blood?
Body: At 11:54 29/03/99 -0600, you wrote:
>This morning I've checked the commentary of F.F. Bruce, who is certainly a
conservative yet careful scholar (F.F.Bruce, _The Acts of the Apostles: Greek
Text with Introduction and Commentary_ 3rd ed.).
I see that Fitzmyer lists -- in addition to Bruce -- Knapp, Pesch, Weiser as having preferred to understand this phrase to mean, "with the blood of his Own," i.e., his own Son.
And, _pace_ Jim Denley, Fitzmyer sees this not as a grammatical but a text-critical problem. He goes on to say:
"Such an absolute use of HO IDIOS is found in Creek papyri as a term of endearment for relatives. Perhaps, then, it might be used here for Jesus, somewhat like Rom 8:32 or 1 Tim 5:8. That, however, is a last-ditch solution for this text-critical problem." [ He has already adduced a list of "all the important MSS"]
He goes on to say:
"The mention of blood" must refer to the vicarious shedding of the blood of Jesus, the Son. Through his blood the Christian community has become God's own possession, the people acquired for his renewed covenant. Cf. Eph 1 : 14; Heb 9: 12; 1 Pet 2:9-10, which speak of God acquiring a people, echoing an OT motif(1Sa 43:21; Ps 74:2j. Luke may be thinking of the action of God the Father and the Son as so close]y related that his mode of speaking slips from one to the other; if so it resembles the speech patterns of the Johannine Gospel. "
HAIMA, as used in classical and Hellenistic Greek for 'bloodrelationship, kin" is covered, drawing on the citations in LS, and the suggestion of K.G.Dolfe that it means " by means of one nearest to him[self] " he dismisses as " really seems farfetched".
. . . .
Krodel's much more condensed volume has this to say:
"the church belongs to God ( 1 Cor. 1 :2; 10:32; 15:9) because he has "purchased" or obtained it with the blood of his own Son. This translation of v. 28 in the second edition of the RSV is better than that found in the first edition, The Greek text does not contain the word Son, but reads his own. Like 'the Beloved'. (Eph. 1:6), so "his own" refers to the Son of God. Only once in Acts does Luke speak of the saving efficacy of the death of Jesus (cf. Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24; 3: l8) by using a traditional formulation. God redeemed his people, the church, through the atoning death of his Son, Therefore the church is God's possession."
>NOTE: This is quoted without the brackets in Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, 1983 and 1989, p. 24
My . . . that is impressive evidence. Many Bible verses are quoted in many other publications without the brackets. Fortunately the JWs are aware of the usage and the reason for it, as are those listed above.
>1 Corinthians 10:4 - The Greek phrase, "he petra de en ho Kristos" ("and the rock was Christ") is mistranslated as "and that rock-mass meant the Christ". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons.
Yes, I do think that you should study this verse more carefully. Consider what Vines Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words states under "rock" (p. 537):
1. petra ([Greek], 4073) denotes "a mass of rock," as distinct from petros, "a detached stone or boulder," or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. For the nature of petra, see Matt. 7:24, 25; 27:51, 60; Mark 15:46; Luke 6:48 (twice), a type of sure foundation (here the true reading is as in the RV, "because it had been well builded"); Rev. 6:15, 16 (cf. Isa. 2:19,ff.; Hos. 10:8); Luke 8:6, 13, used illustratively; 1 Cor. 10:4 (twice), figuratively, of Christ; in Rom. 9:33 and 1 Pet. 2:8, metaphorically, of Christ; in Matt. 16:18, metaphorically, of Christ and the testimony concerning Him; here the distinction between petra, concerning the Lord Himself, and Petros, the apostle, is clear (see above).
Vine's must also be incorrect in rendering PETRA as "mass of rock" in relation to PETROS as "detached stone or boulder."
Regarding the translation of "estin" with "meant," it is to be pointed out that
the NWT says in the footnote to 1 Cor. 10:4:
In fact, the Greek word estin is translated as "the meaning of" at Matt. 12:7 in the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible. And when, according to The New Jerusalem Bible, he went on to pass a cup of wine to his disciples and said: "This cup is the new covenant," no one thought the cup literally was the new covenant. (Luke 22:20)
Also, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament says that this verb "is often i.q. [equivalent to] to denote, signify, import."
A quick analogy may also help. Jesus also said "I am the gate" (John 10:9) and "I am the true vine" (John 15:1). Is it not appropriate to understand these phrases as metaphors? Was Jesus literally a gate or a vine?
>2 Corinthians 1:5 - Greek word "tou" ("of the") mistranslated as "for the". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons.
Actually here I would agree. It seems that "tou" would most properly be
translated "of the." However, I cannot see how the change could be theologically
biased. Perhaps an oversight, but I do not think any great doctrine can be made
by using "for" instead of "of."
>Philippians 2:9 - The English word "other" is added in brackets with no basis in the Greek text in the 1984 edition of the New World Translation. - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons. [Cut Col. 1:16, 1:17, 1:20] (NOTE: The 1950 through 1981 editions of the New World Translation had this word added without the brackets, making it seem as though the Greek text included this thought.) (NOTE: This is quoted without brackets in The Watchtower of February 1, 1992, p. 27)
From Wes Williams:
From there we see this word study with regard to PANTES or "all."
PANTES which excludes the subject.
Peter is mentioned in the same context as PANTES the disciples. However, this does not mean that Peter was not also a disciple. Peter is also included. The NIV here adds "other" to reflect this and to smooth out the English translation effectively translating PANTES as all the other.
Matthew 26:35 GNT
legei autw ho Petros, Kan deh me sun soi apoqanein, ou mh se aparnhsomai. homoiws kai PANTES hoi maqhtai eipan.
Matthew 26:35 NIV
But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.
The mustard seed is mentioned with the class of PANTWN the seeds. Does this mean that the mustard seed is not a seed? No. The New American Standard Versions reflect that understanding in their translations
GNT Matthew 13:32
ho mikroteron men estin PANTWN twn spermatwn. hotan de auxhqh meizon twn lacanwn estin kai ginetai dendron, hwste elqein ta peteina tou ouvranou kai, kataskhnoun en tois kladois autou
Matthew 13:32 NAS
and this is smaller than all other seeds; but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES. "
Matthew 13:32 NAB
and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES."
Herod's taking of his brother's wife is mentioned in connection with PANTWN Herod's Evil deeds. This would not mean that the taking of his brother's wife was not also an evil deed.
Luke 3:19 GNT
ho de Hrwdhs ho tetraarchs elegcomenos hup autou peri Hrwdiados ths gunaikos tou adelfou autou kai peri PANTWN wn epoihsen ponhrwn ho Hrwdhs,
Luke 3:19 NIV
But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and all the other evil things he had done,
The mint and rue were garden herbs (or, vegetables) and are mentioned in context with PAN the garden herbs. This would not except the mint and rue from being garden vegetables. They are also included.
Luke 11:42 GNT
alla ouai humin tois Farisaiois, hoti apodekatoute to hHduosmon kai to phganon kai PAN lacanon kai parercesqe thn krisin kai thn agaphn tou qeou.
"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God.
Here the Galileans in the subject are of the same class as PANTAS the Galileans. In English a translator might choose to use "other" to show that understanding and to smooth out the translation.
Luke 13:2 GNT
kai apokriqeis eipen autois, Dokeite hoti hoi Galilaioi houtoi amartwloi para PANTAS tous Galilaious egenonto hoti tauta peponqasin;
Luke 13:2 NIV
Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?
Luke 13:2 NAS
And He answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate?
Luke 13:2 NAB
And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?
Luke 13:2 NRS
He asked them, "Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans?
Luke 13:2 NKJ
And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things?
Luke 13:4 GNT
hH ekeinoi hoi dekaoktw ef hous epesen ho purgos en tw Silwam kai apekteinen autous, dokeite hoti autoi ofeiletai egenonto para PANTAS tous anqrwpous tous katoikountas Ierousalhm;
Luke 13:4 NKJ
"Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem?
Immortality (or fornication) is mentioned in the immediate context with PAN sins. I appreciate all the responses I received in response to my post on this verse. The conclusion is that fornication is also a sin and included in the category of "sins"
1 Corinthians 6:18 GNT
feugete thn porneian. PAN hamarthma ho ean poihsh anqrwpos ektos tou swmatos estin ho de porneuwn eis to idion swma hamartanei.
1 Corinthians 6:18 NIV
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
1 Corinthians 6:18 NAS
Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.
1 Corinthians 6:18 NAB
Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.
In the following, TA PANTA grammatically includes God himself in the context who did the subjecting. But evidently to avoid any misunderstanding, Paul explicitly excepted God. This explicit exception would not have been necessary if it were grammatically unambiguous. However, even if Paul did not except God explicitly, a reader using reasonableness should know to except God anyway. But the grammar itself allows for ambiguity.
1 Corinthians 15:27 GNT
PANTA gar hupetaxen hupo tous podas autou. hotan de eiph hoti PANTA hupotetaktai dhlon hoti ektos tou hupotaxantos autw TA PANTA
1 Corinthians 15:27 NAB
For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
In conclusion, TA PANTA grammatically may or may not include the one in the context. In other words, one cannot make a theological statement one in the context. I suppose one could, but one should do so with knowledge of the weakness of the statement.
So are all translations that use PANTES in such a manner incorrect?
>Colossians 2:9 - Greek word "Theotetos" (Godship) is mistranslated "divine quality" – See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons.
Andy Gaus, in The Unvarnished New Testament (1991), translates Col. 2:8-10 this way:
Watch out for anyone who might string you along with philosophizing and empty pretense of purely human origin, having to do with "the elements of the cosmos" and having nothing to do with Christ, since in him the whole fullness of divinity bodily resides, and you are now filled with him, the head of all authority and power.
The Greek word translated "Deity" or "Godhead" in many translations of Col. 2:9 is 'theotetos.' It means "divine nature, deity, divinity." (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrigh, Danker Greek Lexicon pg. 358; An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott pg. 362).
The Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines "divinity" as:
di•vin•i•ty (di vin'i te) n., pl. -ties 1. the quality of being divine; divine nature. 2. deity; godhood. 3. a divine being; God. 4. the Divinity, (sometimes l.c.) the Deity. 5. a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities. 6. the study or science of divine things; theology. 7. godlike character; supreme excellence. 8. Also called divin'ity fudge. a fluffy white or artificially tinted fudge made usually of sugar, corn syrup, egg whites, and flavoring, often with nuts. [1275–1325; ME divinite < AF < L divinitas. See DIVINE, -ITY]
The word "theotetos" is, therefore, an "abstract noun" (see B.A.D.G. above page 358) and thus a quality. There is no question as to whether Jesus possesses all the fullness of divine quality or nature. For some context see Col. 1:19 (NASB): "For it was the [Father's] good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in him." This verse then tells us that it was God's, Jesus's Father himself that gave good pleasure, or allowed the Son to possess this fullness of divine quality. The Greek word translated "good pleasure" is "eudokeo," and means: "decide, pleased, consider good, consent." (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Greek-English Lexicon pg. 319; Thayer's Greek Lexicon pg. 258).
This leads to a question that has been asked and answered before (courtesy of a friend named Mark Ross):
How could God see good, or decide, or consent to Jesus having all the fullness of the divine quality IF Jesus was already GOD, the Son, the second person of the trinity BY NATURE?
The answer is, he wasn't always divinity, or a divine being. For if he was, then Paul could NOT have written what he did in Col. 1:19. But some still say: "Regardless of how he got this nature, this still means he is God, because all the fullness of the divine quality, or nature is in him!" Is this the case? Because Jesus has all the fullness of the divine quality or nature in him, does this make him God?
Look at 2 Peter 1:4 where we read: "Through these things he has freely given us the precious and very grand promises, that through these YOU may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust." Yes, according to Peter, the disciples also become sharers in the divine nature. In fact Paul tells us this in the verse right after Colossians 2:9, where we read: "And so YOU are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority."
So does this mean that they also are God? No. And neither is Jesus God because he has a divine nature.
>1 Timothy 4:10 - Greek words "panton anthropon" ("of all men") mistranslated as "of all sorts of men". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons.
Yes, and why does it matter? How is "of all sorts of men" different than "all men"? The NWT is simply amplifying that all types of people have the opportunity to be saved. It seems rather clear that "all men" literally will not be saved. Or is it your position that "all men" regardless of their actions will be saved?
>Titus 2:13 - Greek phrase "Theou kai soteros emon" ("God and Savior of us," or "our God and Savior") mistranslated as "god and of [the] Savior of us". (Note the word "the" added in brackets without any support in the Greek text.) - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons.
Non Trinitarian Renderings of Titus 2:13
"looking for the blessed hope and the *appearing of the glory of [the great God and our Savior (footnote)], Christ Jesus, " (New American Standard Bible, footnote)
"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; " KJV
"of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus" The Riverside New Testament, Boston and New York, 1934
"of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus" A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, New York and London, 1935
"of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ" La Sainte Bible, by Louis Segond, Paris, 1957
"of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus" The New American bible, New York and London, 1970
"of the great God and of Christ Jesus our Savior" The New Testament in Modern English, by J.B. Phillips, New York, 1972
"of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" American Standard Version
"Or our great God and our savior, Christ Jesus." Jerusalem Bible footnote
"Or of the great God and our Savior." Revised Standard Version footnote
"Or of the great God and our Savior" New English Bible footnote
It is to be noted that "Sharp's rule" does not apply to this passage,
since the restrictive force of the proper name creates a semantically similar situation to the use of proper names in passages like Matt. 17:1. (Furuli, p. 285)
Thus, when Countess says the NWT "interpolates the preposition 'of' before 'our Savior,'" he is wrong. In view of all the information considered, this is a legitimate way of translating the verse, which includes use of the disputed preposition. (Furuli, p. 286)
>Hebrews 12:9 - Greek word "pneumaton" ("spirits") paraphrased as "spiritual life". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons.
Yes, and the NWT provides in the footnote to Heb. 12:9:
"Of our spiritual life." Lit., "of the spirits." Gr., ton pneu·ma'ton; J17, 18, 22(Heb.), ha·ru·chohth'.
In fact the CEV has "spiritual Father" to contrast with "earthly fathers" earlier in the text.
>Hebrews 12:23 - Greek word "pneumasi" ("to spirits") paraphrased as "spiritual lives". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons.
Yes, and the NWT provides in the footnote to Heb. 12:23:
"Spiritual lives." Lit., "spirits." Gr., pneu'ma·si; J17, 18, 22(Heb.), ru·chohth'.
The Unvarnished New Testament uses "with the souls" in this verse.
>James 1:12 - Greek word "epeggeilato" (he promised) mistranslated as "Jehovah promised" - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons.
Yes, and the NWT provides in the footnote to James 1:12:
"Jehovah," J7, 8, 13, 16, 17; C(Gr.), Ky'ri·os; ItVgSyp, "God"; NAB omit. See App 1D.
You might observe that the NRSV,KJV, NKJV, and NASB use "Lord" and the NIV, NLT, NCV, and RNT use "God." Are all of these versions also mistranslating the passage by not using "he"?
>James 3:9 - Greek word "kai" ("and") mistranslated as "even". - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons.
Let's see, the KJV translates James 3:9: "even the Father." Has it too mistranslated the verse?
Otherwise why would the JWs object to the predominate translation of "God and Father"?
>Revelation 5:10 - Greek word "epi" ("on") mistranslated as "over" - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons.
Let's examine this verse closely, the NWT footnote to Rev. 5:10 reads:
"Over." Gr., e·pi', with the genitive, as in Re 9:11; 11:6.
The footnote to this verse in the Original New Testament by Schonfield reads:
This is the NT teaching about the faithful. Heaven is never their home: they reign over a redeemed earth.
Therefore, if your translation is the correct one, why do other versions not use "on" and not "over" or another word or phrase in Rev. 9:11 and 11:6?
>Revelation 19:10 - Greek phrase "he gar marturia Iesou estin to pneuma tes propheteias" ("for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy") mistranslated as "for the bearing witness to Jesus is what inspires prophesying." - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons. Revelation 19:10 - Greek word "pneuma" ("spirit") mistranslated as "what inspires." - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons.
Yes, and the NWT provides in the footnote to Rev. 19:10:
"Bearing witness." Gr., mar·ty·ri'a; Lat., te·sti·mo'ni·um. Or, "is the spirit of." Or, "the prophecy."
The NLT reads:
For the essence of prophecy is to give a clear witness for Jesus.
The CEV reads:
Everyone who tells about Jesus does it by the power of the Spirit.
Otherwise, I see no problem with any versions rendition, because all accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek text.
>Revelation 19:10 - Greek word "Iesou" ("of Jesus," or "Jesus'") mistranslated as "to Jesus." - See Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Greek text and lexicons.
The NRSV provides a footnote to Rev. 19:10 which reads:
Or "to Jesus."
Is this translation incorrect also in providing this alternate reading?
>Here is the short essay about one of the problems with the NWT: Tampering with the Inspired Word [Cut rest of this part of article]
I have already dealt with the translation of "degel" above.
>The 1984 Watchtower brochure, The DIVINE NAME That Will Endure Forever has this statement on page 5: "If someone deliberately changes or omits part of the contents of the Bible, he is tampering with the inspired Word."
Yes, so when other versions purposely change and/or remove the Tetragram from the Scriptures are they "tampering with the inspired Word"? Yes or no?
>So, how does the Watchtower explain the deletion of the meaning of the word deh'gel from the NWT? The Watchtower, November 15, 1962, page 701 says in part: "But, someone may protest, how can you say that flags come under that Scriptural prohibition when the Bible itself shows that even the Israelites had ensigns or standards around which their three-tribe divisions gathered while in the wilderness? (Num. 2:2) In this connection the comment made in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia is of interest. After discussing the Hebrew words used, it says: "Neither of them, however, expresses the idea which 'standard' conveys to our minds, viz. a flag." Furthermore, they were not viewed as sacred, nor were any ceremonies associated with their use. They simply served the practical purpose of signs, showing the people where to gather."
Actually Insight into the Scriptures, Vol.1, p. 397 is quite explicit:
"Signs for the house of their fathers" were provided to help a person find his proper place in the camp. (Nu 2:2) Since the Hebrew expression de'ghel, rendered "three-tribe division," also means "banner" (as in Ca 2:4), it is possible that there were tribal markers as well as family ensigns. The Bible gives neither the number nor a description of these signs.
Further, the quote that you have taken from its context above does not say that flags or banners themselves are disallowed, but that SALUTING or VENERATING them should be avoided.
The complete quote is here:
SALUTING A FLAG
It is easy for one to be swept off his feet by emotion, but Jehovah’s witnesses look to the Bible for guidance. The Scriptures make it clear that, to please God, one must "flee from idolatry." (1 Cor. 10:14) It is also well known that the second of the Ten Commandments says: "You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion." (Ex. 20:4, 5) Yet national emblems bear such likenesses, and they are viewed as sacred, which means that saluting them takes on a religious significance. As pointed out by Arnold Toynbee, it is worship that is given to the flag; and, bearing this out, the governor of Virginia in the United States not long ago declared: "I not only respect, I worship the flag of my country." In the light of these facts it can be seen that it is not out of disrespect for the flag, but out of obedience to Jehovah God, that Jehovah’s witnesses refrain from saluting the flag.
But, someone may protest, how can you say that flags come under that Scriptural prohibition when the Bible itself shows that even the Israelites had ensigns or standards around which their three-tribe divisions gathered while in the wilderness? (Num. 2:2) In this connection the comment made in McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopędia is of interest. After discussing the Hebrew words used, it says: "Neither of them, however, expresses the idea which ‘standard’ conveys to our minds, viz. a flag." Furthermore, they were not viewed as sacred, nor were any ceremonies associated with their use. They simply served the practical purpose of signs, showing the people where to gather.
>This quotation helps explain why the Watchtower prohibits flag ceremonies, but does not explain why they have altered the meaning of the Bible. God told the tribes to camp and to march under their standards. This was to be done in divisions of three tribes, but not under "[three-tribe] divisions". It was to be done under the flag of the division. The Watchtower has altered the meaning of the Word of God!
It is unfortunate that you use so many illogical arguments in this pseodu-academic attack. Perhaps you should study the Bible more carefully and pray for guidance in its understanding.