The Watchtower Answers Its Critics (Part 3) 9 Pag

8/8/2019 The Watchtower Answers Its Critics (Part 3) 9 Pag

1/9

Questions 21-30

21. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible,why does it alter the word of God by twice adding the words relation to in

Mt 5:19, when this phrase does not exist in the Greek? See Gr-Engl

Interlinear. How would this verse read if the phrase relation to had not

been added to it and what would this say about who can enter the kingdom

of heaven? If only 144,000 people will go to heaven, why does scripture say in

this verse that ANYONE who does them (the commandments) and teaches

them will be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.? What does

the word anyone mean to you?

To emphasize a previous point: there is no such thing as a word-for-wordtranslation of the Bible. The Watchtower has never made the claim thatthe NWT is such. The obligation of the translator is to impart the intendedmeaning of the text to the extent possible. That is what the NWT hasendeavored to do.

In answer to the question, as to how the verse would read without addingthe words in "relation to," it reads in the NIV as follows: "Anyonewhobreaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches othersto do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but

whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called greatin the kingdom of heaven."

Apparently, the questioner supposes that the expression "in the kingdomof the heaven"means that the keeper of the commandments receives aheavenly reward. That, though, is not what Jesus was saying. This isapparent from the fact that he said that those who break the commandswill be called "least in the kingdom of heaven." Are we to suppose thatthose who break God's commands and mislead others to do the same willstillgo to heaven, but that they will merely have a lesser place than thosewho keep God's laws? According to the mind-twisting illogic of the

questioner, that is the conclusion we would have to draw. After all, it saysthat they will be least "in the kingdom of heaven"so they have to be in


2/9

heaven, right?

That would mean that Paul didn't know what he was talking about whenhe told the Corinthians that fornicators and adulterers would notinherit thekingdom. Such convoluted reasoning in itself would appear to justify why

the NWT added "in relation"to clarify that particular text.

22. If the earth will never be destroyed or depopulated, how can it be, then,

that God says in Isa 51:6, "... the earth itself will wear out, and its

inhabitants themselves will die like a mere gnat...", and that John says in

Rev 21:1 that he saw "... a new heaven and a NEW earth; for the former

heaven and the FORMER earth had PASSED AWAY, and the sea is NO

MORE."? Similarly, if the WTSs teaching that the earth will never bedestroyed or depopulated is correct, then why does the Bible say that the

earth itselfwill perish (Ps 102:25-26, Heb 1:10-11), and why does Jesus

himself say that Heaven and EARTH will PASS AWAY (Mt 24:35, Mk

13:31, Lk 21:33)? Conversely, in Eccl 1:4, Solomon says, A generation is

going and a generation is coming; but the earth is standing even to time

indefinite. But didnt Solomon write this scripture at a time in his life when

he had ceased to serve the Lord and therefore wrote only his own thoughts

from a very humanistic point of view? In Eccl 1:2, he states, Everything is

vanity! and in vs 8 he says, All things are wearisome. Since obviously not

everything is vanity and not all things are wearisome to a true

Christian, doesnt this show that Solomon was speaking for himself anddoesnt this whole passage just show the futility of man without God?

The untaught assume that every reference to "earth" is literal. Thinkingpeople, though, grasp that the Bible uses various kinds of symbolism andhyperbole.

In context, down in the 15th verse of the 51st chapter of Isaiah, it isapparent that Jehovah is speaking in terms of a symbolicheavens andearth. The verse reads: "But I, Jehovah, am your God, the One stirring

up the sea that its waves may be boisterous. Jehovah of armies ishis name. And I shall put my words in your mouth, and with theshadow of my hand I shall certainly cover you, in order to plant theheavens and lay the foundation of the earth and say to Zion, 'You aremy people.'

According to the 15th verse, the new heavens and new earth are actuallythe people that God blesses. The verse is describing in symbolic termshow Jehovah is going to reclaim his people from their downtroddencondition and restore them to his favor. If the new heavens and new earth

are people, it stands to reason that the old heavens and earth that expire


3/9

represent the oldsystem of government and society.

As for Solomon's supposedly writing Ecclesiastes after he became anapostate, that directly contradicts the apostle Paul's inspired statementthat "all Scripture is inspired of God." Solomon was speaking of the

futility of strictly human endeavors. In contrast to vainly striving after thewind, Solomon concluded his book by saying that the whole obligation ofman was to fear God.

23. The NWT translates the Greek word Theos in John 1:1c as a god

(deleted for brevity)

If Theon was translated as God in Jn 10:33, how would this verse readand what would it say about the nature of Christ? What did Jesus say in this

passage that made the Jews want to kill him? See Jn 10:30-31. The phrase

Son of God in theological language is a Semitic term which means having

the same nature as God, or being God, just as the term Son of man means

having the same nature as a man, or being a man. Since blasphemy is one

of the few offenses in Jewish law for which a person may be stoned to death,

wouldnt this claim of Christ, that he is the Son of God, qualify as a

blasphemous statement to the Jews, and wasnt this the reason they wanted

to kill him by stoning him to death (Jn 10:31, 36-39)?

John 1:1 is without doubt the most talked-about verse in the Bible. If thereader wishes to examine both sides of the argument there are ampleresources on the Internet. Here are a few links. This site has a lot ofinformation on the John 1:1 controversy. Here is a link to a site with anextensive reference work to various translations of John 1:1.

As for John 10:33, it is notable that Trinitarians are disposed to referencethe Pharisees and the Christ-hating Jews, as if they spoke the truth. Jesushad already told them in the 8 th chapter that they did not know him or hisFather who sent him, but that they were liars and sons of the Devil. The

truth is the Jews were lying when they said that Jesus made himself God.He didn't. In context, in the 29th verse Jesus merely said: "What myFather has given me is greater than all other things, and no one cansnatch them out of the hand of the Father. I and the Father are one."

WhileTrinitarians are quick to assume that expressions such as "I and theFather are one," is the same thing as saying 'I am God,' the Scripturesindicate otherwise. In the 17th chapter of John, for example, Jesusacknowledged his oneness with God and asked his Father's blessingupon his disciples that they may be one with them. Certainly no

reasonable person would conclude that Jesus was saying that all
http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htmhttp://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htmhttp://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htmhttp://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm


4/9

Christians are God or part of some kind of multiple Godhead.

Actually, Jesus did not let the Jews' lie go uncorrected. In the 36 th versehe set them straight by reiterating that he said he was God's Sonand thathe was dispatched by his Father.

Yet, according to Trinitarian reasoning, the word "son" is synonymous with"father." Apparently, then, words have no real meaning, so black isactually white; up is down; death is life, and so on and so forth.

24. Jehovah's Witnesses--Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, reference is

made to The Finished Mystery, which was the 7th of the Studies in the

Scriptures series published by the WTS in 1917 (pg 66, 719), and was themajor publication of the WTS at that time. On pgs. 88, 648, and 651, a

picture of this book appears, complete with the winged disk symbol of the

Egyptian sun god Ra on its front cover... (Segment cropped for brevity)

Do you really think that Jesus would have chosen an organization which

taught so many things that were not correct according to "current" WTS

teachings and are no longer taught as "the Truth"? Since God does not tell

lies or change his mind (Num 23:19, Ps 89:34, Heb 6:18), and it is clear that

the WTS could not have possibly been speaking for God when they taught

these things, at least according to current WTS teachings, how do you know

that the WTS is speaking for God now?

Jesus' original apostles and disciples had all sorts of misconceptions thatwere not cleared up until after Jesus was resurrected. That's why at Luke24:25, Christ said to them: "O senseless ones and slow in heart tobelieve on all the things the prophets spoke!" Yet, even though Christdescribed his beloved apostles as senseless and slow to believe God'sword, he previously entrusted them with the responsibility to represent himas they went through the land declaring that the kingdom of God haddrawn near. That is extraordinary when we consider that at that time theapostles were sent forth they did not even know that the kingdom was

going to be in heaven.

Jehovah's Witnesses are in the same position relative to Christ's arrival,as were the apostles before Christ death and resurrection. Malachi 3:1-2foretells that the arrival of God's Messianic messenger will result in arefining and cleansing of God's servants. It reads: "Look! I am sendingmy messenger, and he must clear up a way before me. And suddenlythere will come to His temple the true Lord, whom you people areseeking, and the messenger of the covenant in whom you aredelighting. Look! He will certainly come," Jehovah of armies has

said. But who will be putting up with the day of his coming, and whowill be the one standing when he appears? For he will be like the fire


5/9

of a refiner and like the lye of laundrymen."

If there is a final accounting and cleansing for the true people of God, asthe Scriptures say, then it stands to reason that there are uncleanteachings and attitudes that need to be purged. Therefore the errors of

Jehovah's Witnesses, past and present, do not of themselves disqualifyus from representing God's kingdom, as the apostles were not disqualifiedin their unenlightened state. The qualifying factor is our willingness toallow ourselves to be disciplined and taught by Christ.

25. Isa 42:8 says, I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I

give my OWN GLORY Similarly, Isa 48:11 says, And to no one else

shall I give my OWN GLORY. If Christ is not God, then how could he sayin Jn 17:5, So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the

GLORY that I HAD ALONGSIDE YOU before the world was? Since God

stated that no one else would have the glory that alone belonged to God, how

could Christ have the same glory as God unless Christ is God in the flesh?

Since Christ clearly stated that he once possessed God's glory and heasked God to glorify him again, the question shouldhave been: Why doesGod say that he will not share his glory with anyone else when in realityhe shares it with Christ? The problem is that the questioner takes isolated

statements and turns them into absolutes.

26. Phil 2:6-8 says that Christ was existing in GODS FORM before he

became a man, and willingly emptied (lowered) HIMSELF to become a

man and humbled HIMSELF in order to make himself subject to the

Father. Scripture also says that Christ was born under the law (Gal 4:4), in

order to do, not his own will, but the will of the Father (Jn 5:30, 6:37).

Doesnt this mean that before Christ lowered himself, he would not have

been subject to the Father and therefore equal to the Father in authority and

glory? See also Jn 17:5

No, of course not. When Jesus was on earth he stated that he alwaysdidthe things pleasing to his Father. That would mean that he did what waspleasing to God while he lived in heaven. He also said that he did notcome of his own initiative but that his Father sent him. Obviously, forJehovah to send his Son down from heaven to earth, the Son would have

been subject to the Father beforehe came to earth. The twisted reasoningof the questioner is merely symptomatic of those who have been willfully


6/9

blinded to the truth by the Trinity doctrine.

27. The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" ( ) as "I am" every time

it appears in the New Testament (eg, Jn 6:35, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.),

except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been". If the NWT is the

most accurate word for word translation of the Bible what is the reason for

the inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was translated in Jn 8:58

the same way it is translated in every other verse in which it appears, how

would Jn 8:58 read and what would this verse say about the nature of

Christ? See Exo 3:14 in every version of the Bible except the NWT. Why is

this phrase, ego eimi translated as I am in the KIT, but I have been in

the NWT? Since I am is present tense, and I have been is past tense,

which tense is correct? If the translators of the NWT were Greek scholars,

shouldnt they have known which tense ego eimi is?

If "ego eimi" were translated at John 8:54 in the NWT to read as a title, "IAm," like most translations render it, then, it too would be guilty ofrendering a grammatically tortured and nonsensical passage. Thequestion Jehovah's Witnesses pose is: Why have other translations beeninconsistentin translating "ego eimi"? For instance, one of the proof textsyou cited reads in the NIV:"I amthe bread of life. He who comes to me

will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never bethirsty."

In that verse "ego eimi" is translated to read as a mere pronoun and verb.What justification is there, then, for the translator to render that very samephrase as if it were a title synonymous with the name of Jehovah, as theyhave done at John 8:58? Answer: There isno justification, only apparentbias towards promotion of the unscriptural Trinity doctrine.

If Jesus intended to take the title of "I Am,"he would have said somethinglike, 'Before Abraham lived, I was the I Am.' As it stands, converting the

"am" into a proper noun leaves the sentence without any sort of modifyingverb for the pronoun. That is why John 8:58 in most translations is meregibberish, unless you imagine that Jesus suddenly started speaking insome sort of Ebonics. If the concocted title of "I Am" at John 8:58 is simplyanother name of God, then we ought to be able to substitute the wordGodor Jehovahand get the samesense. So, read the verse in questionsubstituting "I Am"with Godand what do you get? The NIV would read:"Before Abraham was born, God."

You don't have to be a Greek scholar to appreciate that the translation ofego eimias "I Am" is a hackneyed and clumsy attempt by Trinitarians toprop up a limp doctrine that cannot stand up on its own. The truth is that
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebonicshttp://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebonics


7/9

the expression in question can denote a past action, and according to thecontext Jesus was asked about his past. The NWT is not the onlytranslation to realize this. The New Living Translation (NLT) nicelyphrases it, saying: The people said, "You aren't even fifty years old.How can you say you have seen Abraham?" Jesus answered, "The

truth is, I existedbefore Abraham was even born!"

The Watchtower is clearly justified in translating ego eimi as "I havebeen."

28. Almost every time the Greek word ginosko (Strongs # 1097) is used in

the New Testament, the NWT translates it as know or known (eg, 1Cor

8:3, Gal 4:9, Jn 10:14, Jn 10:27, etc). However, in Jn 17:3, this same Greek

word is rendered as taking in knowledge of. What is the reason for the

inconsistency of the translation of this word in Jn 17:3 by the NWT? If the

NWT were consistent and translated this word in Jn 17:3 the same way it is

translated in the other verses in which it appears, how would this verse

read? In addition, the Kingdom Interlinear translates this word as they

may be KNOWING instead of their taking in knowledge as it is

translated in the NWT. Why the inconsistency in translation between the

KIT and the NWT? If this word was translated in this verse like it is

translated in the other verses in which it appears, how would this verse

read? How could a person come to know Jesus Christ unless they have arelationship with him? How could a person have a relationship with Christ

unless they communicate with Jesus through prayer?

For the benefit of readers who do not have access to older Watchtowerpublications, here is a transcript taken straight from the March 1st, 1992,Watchtower, which discusses this very question. It seems appropriate tosimply allow the Watchtower to speak for itself on this question.

Why, though, does the NewWorldTranslation render this verse "taking in

knowledge of. . .? God" instead of "know . . . God," as mostother translations of the Bible express it?See also the footnote to John

17:3.

The Greek word here translated 'take in knowledge' or "know" is a form

of the verb ginosko. And the rendering in the NewWorldTranslation is

designed to bring out as fully as possible the meaning of that word. The basic

meaning ofginosko is to "know," but the Greek word has various shades of

meaning. Note the following definitions:

"GINOSKO () signifies to be taking in knowledge, to come to

know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely." (Expository
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JOHN+8&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NLT&x=5&y=10http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_08.htmhttp://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_08.htmhttp://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JOHN+8&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NLT&x=5&y=10


8/9

Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine) Hence, rendering

ginosko 'take in knowledge' is not 'changing the Bible,' as critics of the New

World Translation have alleged. In a discussion of the various shades of

meaning the word can encompass, renowned lexicographer James Hope

Moulton states: "The present simplex, , is durative, 'to be taking in

knowledge.'"AGrammarofNewTestamentGreek.

AGrammaticalAnalysisoftheGreekNewTestament explains ginosko

as it appears at John 17:3 as "implying a continuous process." A further

comment on this Greek word appears in WordStudiesintheNewTestament,

by Marvin R. Vincent. This says: "Eternal life consists in knowledge, or

rather the pursuitof knowledge, since the present tense marks acontinuance,

aprogressive perception." (Italics his.) A. T. Robertson's WordPictures in

theNewTestamentsuggests translating the word "should keep on knowing."

Therefore, in the original Greek, Jesus' words at John 17:3 imply

continuous effort to get to know the true God and his Son, Jesus Christ, and

this is well brought out in the rendering of the NewWorldTranslation. We

acquire this knowledge by diligently studying God's Word and by obediently

conforming our lives to its standards. (Compare Hosea 4:1, 2; 8:2; 2 Timothy

3:16, 17.) What fine reward awaits those who acquaint themselves with

God's personality and with that of his Son and then strive to imitate them?

Everlasting life!

(Copyright 1992, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society)

29. If the soul is the body, why does Jesus make a distinction between the

body and the soul in Mt 10:28? Similarly, if the soul is the body, why does

Paul make a distinction between the spirit and soul and body of you in

1Thess 5:23? In addition, the NWT renders 2Tim 4:22 as, The Lord [be]

with the spirit you [show]even though the Kingdom Interlinear

Translation (KIT) translates the Greek phrase soul pneuma as the spirit

of you. Why is there a difference between the KIT and the NWT rendition

of this verse? Why does the NWT add the word [show] when it does not

appear in the Greek? Wouldnt the KIT version be a much simpler andstraight forward rendition of this verse? If the KIT version is used, what

does this verse say about the spirit of a person?

You are mistaken. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that the body andsoul are the same thing. "Soul"has several different meanings. It is usedin the Bible to refer to the person or the life that a person possesses.There is more to a person than merely a body. The Watchtower haspublished much information to help people understand these elementary

yet fundamental Bible teachings.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2002/6/1/article_02.htmhttp://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2002/6/1/article_02.htm


9/9

30. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible,

why does it alter the word of God by adding the word [Son] in Acts 20:28when this word does not exist in the Greek? See Gr-Engl Interlinear.

The NIV renders this verse as saying: "Be shepherds of the church ofGod,which he bought with his ownblood."

However, the Contemporary English Version (CEV) agrees with the NWT,it reads: "Be like shepherds to God's church. It is the flock that hebought with the blood of his own Son."

Which translation is correct? The NWT and CEV are correct. The originalGreek does not support the so-called "popular" rendering. Neither do theScriptures support the idea that God gave his own life as a ransom. TheBible says in dozens of places that God gave his son, not himself.

The Kingdom Interlinear transliterates the verse in question to say thatGod purchased the congregation "through the blood of the own (one)."That is not to say God's ownblood, but the blood of one who belonged toGodnamely his Son's blood. The NWT is fully justified in making thatclear.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS+20&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NIV&x=12&y=11http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS+20&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=CEV&x=13&y=9http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS+20&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=CEV&x=13&y=9http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS+20&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NIV&x=12&y=11

Documents

The Watchtower Answers Its Critics (Part 3) 9 Pag