Carelinks Network For Former Jehovah's Witnesses
Quick links : About Us · Personal Testimonies · Bible Studies · Forum · Free Literature · Events · Links · Contact Us · Home
- Frederick William Franz
- George Gangas
- Karl Klein
- Nathan Knorr
- Albert Schroeder
- Milton Henschel
- ^ 1987 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 10
- ^ See Ankerberg, John and John Weldon, 2003, The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, accessible from this site, which quotes a number of scholars regarding alleged theological bias of the New World Translation.
- ^ Metzger, Bruce M, The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, The Bible Translator 15/3 (July 1964), pp. 150-153.
- ^ Rowley, H.H., How Not To Translate the Bible, The Expository Times, 1953; 65; 41
- ^ BeDuhn, Jason D. Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2004
- ^ Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, p.163
- ^ http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm
- ^ http://www.watchtower.org/bible/joh/chapter_001.htm
- ^ Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, pages 85-89
- ^ New World Translation w/ References, App. 6A
- ^ Dr. BeDuhn, Truth In Translation (ISBN 0761825568), Pg.132: “A lexical (“interlinear”) translation of the controversial clause would read: “And a god was the Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: “And the Word was a god.” The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation, of which “the Word was divine” would be a slightly more polished variant carrying the same basic meaning.”
- ^ Wallace's NET Bible, John 1:1 ft.3 - “From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God”
- ^ http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j01.html
- ^ http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050915/article_02.htm
- ^ NWT w/ References App. 6a
- ^ Bill Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, Pgs. 27-28
- ^ New World Translation, John 1:18
- ^ Kingdom Interlinear Translation, John 1:18
- ^ Truth in Translation pg. 117, While this may be true of anarthrous theos in the genitive or dative cases, two forms that freely dispense with the article in a number of uses, it is not the case for anarthrous theos in the nominative case, the form used in John 1:1c.”
- ^ NWT w/ References App. 6a
- ^ Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics, page 290: "The history of NT studies involves many ironies. One has to do with the syntax of the article: On the one hand, Colwell's rule, as applied to John 1:1, has been played as a trump card by Trinitarians in many christological debates, even though the rule really says nothing about the definiteness of theos. Indeed, an examination both of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives and of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel strongly suggest a qualitative force to theos (a view which affirms the deity of Christ just as strongly but for different reasons)."
- ^ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922767-2,00.html
- ^ http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/FranzNWT.htm
- ^ "The Four Presidents of the Watch Tower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses)" by Edmond C. Gruss
- ^ http://www.focusonthefaulty.com/Pages/jehovahs.html
- ^ See this page
Criticism Of The New World Translation
The New World Translation is claimed by Jehovah's Witnesses to be the most accurate translation of the original manuscripts to date. [27]. However, Drs. John Ankerberg and John Weldon write, “the scholarly Christian community has rendered its verdict on the NWT: such a translation must not be trusted to accurately convey God’s Word because of its unrelenting biases in translation.”[28]. Reviewing the New World Translation, Dr. Bruce Metzger writes, “The introduction of the word ‘Jehovah’ into the New Testament text, in spite of much ingenuity in an argument filled with a considerable amount of irrelevant material (pp. 10-25), is a plain piece of special pleading.”[29] Scholar H. H. Rowley says of the translation, “From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated”.[30] In contrast, a recent book by Dr. Jason BeDuhn[31] states (in regards to the New Testament of the NWT): “While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said the NW[T] emerges as the most accurate of the translations ... judging by the passages we have looked at.” [32]
An example of the differences between the NWT and other translations is in the 1st verse of John's Gospel, considered a proof text for the divinity of Christ by most Christians. Classically, it is rendered "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."[33] The NWT renders the text, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."[34]
In regards to this passage, critics claim:
1) That this was purposefully translated in order to deny the traditional view that Jesus is God. [35] Witnesses are quick to point out that the passage is expressing a divine quality about Jesus [36]; Christian scholars agree with a qualitative (descriptive) nuance of theos in John 1:1c. [37][38]
2) That the addition of a second smaller "god" (Jesus) to the bigger "Jehovah God" (the Father) in the translation introduces polytheism into the New Testament (Martin and Bruce Metzger)[39]. Witnesses deny the "polytheist" label [40] and point out that the NWT is a literal translation that mandates a rendering of "a god" with an interpretation of "Godlike" or "Divine". [41]
3) That the predicate nominative inflection for the word "God" and the sequence of the words in the Greek sentence "and God was the Word" require the traditional translation in English "and the Word was God". [42]
4) That the word for God (theos) without the article is used only a few verses later in the text in both the accusative and nominative cases, which the NWT translates without an indefinite article both times "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten god..."[43][44] BeDuhn explains the fallacy of this assertion, and Martin's fundamental misunderstanding of basic Koine Greek, by pointing out that the passages are not comparable. [45]
As can be seen in the preceding points and counter-points, both sides agree that the anarthrous nominative theos can be taken in a qualitative sense -- something like "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Deity, and Deity [i.e. qualitative] was the Word."[46] and [47] The contention involves the underlying doctrines behind the two sides. For one side "a god" is taken qualitatively. For the other side "God" is taken qualitatively.
Although the members of the committee that translated the NWT wish to remain anonymous, Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body[48], has claimed that the translation committee consisted of 6 members:[49]
William Cetnar, a former Witness who resigned from the international headquarters in 1958 and was disfellowshipped from the religion for apostasy in 1962[50], also included Milton Henschel as a member of the translation committee.[51]
It has been argued that the NWT translators were insufficiently qualified to translate the Bible, with only Franz having formal education in Biblical languages. It has also been argued that the size of the translation committee was very small compared to the number of translators involved in producing most other English translations.[52]