J-Dub Apologist Willfully Distorts Christian Scholars on John 1:1

Published July 10, 2023July 11, 2023 by Papa Giorgio

JOHN 1:1-3

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2. This one was in the beginning with God. 3. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. (NEW WORLD TRANSLATION)
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was with God in the beginning. 3. All things were created through him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. (CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE, CSB)

I chose three excerpts below from a longer video to show how this Jehovah Witness (J-Dub) apologist rips peoples thoughts from their larger context. (LINK TO THE FULL VIDEO.) BTW, his videos are numerous and can keep the apologist busy in counter-cult responses. Also, it is worth pointing out as I watched the guy pick up and read from THE NET BIBLE, front pages, noting the contributors and scholastic notes. Something the NWT is missing. He sorta shot himself in the foot a bit with that as his inflection on the description was to give some weight or authority to it.

This should be paired with my:

“Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Polytheists? Mistranslation of John 1:1“

THE NET BIBLE

This J-DUB Apologist misquotes, or, quotes out of context, not allowing the Bibles wonderful notes to speak for themselves:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. ^[1]

tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” 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. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.^[2]

[1] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), Jn 1:1,

[2] IBID.

So, the full context of the notes in the NET BIBLE show that the end result refutes the New World Translations rendering of John 1:1. Come on, give it up for the NET saying John 1:1c should read:

TO WIT: what God was the Word was, or, the Word was fully God… rather, it [John 1:1] affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

As well as the NET throwing Moffat and other translations under the short bus a tad.

JAMES R. WHITE

I really do hope curious Jehovah’s Witnesses see the video and go get these books to “disprove” Trinitarians. The free thinking J-Dubs may be blessed in a real sense by these “refutations”.

INDEFINITE, DEFINITE, QUALITATIVE, OR WHAT?

Before leaving John 1:1, we need to wrestle with the controversy that surrounds how to translate the final phrase. We’ve touched a bit on it above, but it would be good to lay out the possibilities. Without going into all the issues, the possible renderings fall into three categories:

Indefinite: hence, “a god.”
Definite: hence, “God.”
Qualitative: hence, “in nature God.”

Arguments abound about how to translate an “anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative,” and most people get lost fairly quickly when you start throwing terms like those around. Basically, the question we have to ask is this: how does John intend us to take the word θεός in the last clause? Does he wish us to understand it as indefinite, so that no particular “god” is in mind, but instead, that Jesus is a god, one of at least two, or even more? Or is θεός definite, so that the God is in view? Or does the position of the word (before the verb, adding emphasis), coupled with the lack of the article, indicate that John is directing us to a quality when he says the Word is θεός? That is, is John describing the nature of the Word, saying the Word is deity?

In reference to the first possibility, we can dismiss it almost immediately. The reasons are as follows:

Monotheism in the Bible—certainly it cannot be argued that John would use the very word he always uses of the one true God, θεός, of one who is simply a “godlike” one or a lesser “god.” The Scriptures do not teach that there exists a whole host of intermediate beings that can truly be called “gods.” That is gnosticism.

The anarthrous θεός—If one is to dogmatically assert that any anarthrous noun must be indefinite and translated with an indefinite article, one must be able to do the same with the 282 other times θεός appears anarthrously. For an example of the chaos that would create, try translating the anarthrous θεός at 2 Corinthians 5:19 (i.e., “a god was in Christ …”). What is more, θεός appears many times in the prologue of John anarthrously, yet no one argues that in these instances it should be translated “a god.” Note verses 6, 12, 13, and 18. There is simply no warrant in the language to do this.

No room for alternate understanding—It ignores a basic tenet of translation: if you are going to insist on a translation, you must be prepared to defend it in such a way so as to provide a way for the author to have expressed the alternate translation. In other words, if θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος is “the Word was a god,” how could John have said “the Word was God?” We have already seen that if John had employed the article before θεός, he would have made the terms θεός and λόγος interchangeable, amounting to modalism.

Ignores the context—The translation tears the phrase from the immediately preceding context, leaving it alone and useless. Can He who is eternal (first clause) and who has always been with God (second clause), and who created all things (verse 3), be “a god”?

F.F. Bruce sums up the truth pretty well:

It is nowhere more sadly true than in the acquisition of Greek that “a little learning is a dangerous thing.” The uses of the Greek article, the functions of Greek prepositions, and the fine distinctions between Greek tenses are confidently expounded in public at times by men who find considerable difficulty in using these parts of speech accurately in their native tongue.

A footnote appears after the comment on the article, and it says:

Those people who emphasize that the true rendering of the last clause of John 1:1 is “the word was a god,” prove nothing thereby save their ignorance of Greek grammar.

So our decision, then, must be between the definite understanding of the word and the qualitative. If we take θεός as definite, we are hard-pressed to avoid the same conclusion that we would reach if the word had the article; that is, if we wish to say the God in the same way as if the word had the article, we are making θεός and λόγος interchangeable. Yet the vast majority of translations render the phrase “the Word was God.” Is this not the definite translation? Not necessarily.

The last clause of John 1:1 tells us about the nature of the Word. The translation should be qualitative. We have already seen in the words of F. F. Bruce that John is telling us that the Word “shared the nature and being of God.” The New English Bible renders the phrase “what God was, the Word was.” Kenneth Wuest puts it, “And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity.” Yet Daniel Wallace is quite right when he notes:

Although I believe that θεός in 1:1c is qualitative, I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is, “and the Word was God.” It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father, than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Father.

Here we encounter another instance where the English translation is not quite up to the Greek original. We must go beyond a basic translation and ask what John himself meant.

In summary, then, what do we find in John 1:1? In a matter of only seventeen short Greek words, John communicates the following truths:

The Word is eternal—He has always existed and did not come into existence at a point in time.
The Word is personal—He is not a force, but a person, and that eternally. He has always been in communion with the Father.
The Word is deity—The Word is God as to His nature.

We would all do well to communicate so much in so few words! But he did not stop at verse 1. This is but the first verse of an entire composition. We move on to examine the rest.^[1]

[1] James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 55–58.

This next quote I really couldn’t believe, have read through large swaths of this book during my seminary years.

DANIEL B. WALLACE

I have a link to a reference Doc Wallace uses that takes you directly to the source in the excerpt.

Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1

John 1:1 states: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In the last part of the verse, the clause καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1c), θεός is the PN. It is anarthrous and comes before the verb. Therefore, it fits Colwell’s construction, though it might not fit the rule (for the rule states that definiteness is determined or indicated by the context, not by the grammar). Whether it is indefinite, qualitative, or definite is the issue at hand.

Is Θεός in John 1:1c Indefinite?

If θεός were indefinite, we would translate it “a god” (as is done in the New World Translation [NWT]). If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.

The grammatical argument that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous. Yet they are inconsistent, as R. H. Countess pointed out:

In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time.…

The first section of John-1:1–18—furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Θεός occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18—and has the article only twice-verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.” ^{[1] (See page 54, you can turn to 55 once there.)}

If we expand the discussion to other anarthrous terms in the Johannine Prologue, we notice other inconsistencies in the NWT: It is interesting that the New World Translation renders θεός as “a god” on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient basis. Following the “anarthrous = indefinite” principle would mean that ἀρχῇ should be “a beginning” (1:1, 2), ζωὴ should be “a life” (1:4), παρὰ θεοῦ should be “from a god” (1:6), Ἰωάννης should be “a John” (1:6), θεόν should be “a god” (1:18), etc. Yet none of these other anarthrous nouns is rendered with an indefinite article. One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation.

According to Dixon’s study, if θεός were indefinite in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal PN in John’s Gospel to be so. Although we have argued that this is somewhat overstated, the general point is valid: The indefinite notion is the most poorly attested for anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives. Thus, grammatically such a meaning is improbable. Also, the context suggests that such is not likely, for the Word already existed in the beginning. Thus, contextually and grammatically, it is highly improbable that the Logos could be “a god” according to John. Finally, the evangelist’s own theology militates against this view, for there is an exalted Christology in the Fourth Gospel, to the point that Jesus Christ is identified as God (cf. 5:23; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28, etc.).

Is Θεός in John 1:1c Definite?

Grammarians and exegetes since Colwell have taken θεός as definite in John 1:1c. However, their basis has usually been a misunderstanding of Colwell’s rule. They have understood the rule to say that an anarthrous pre-verbal PN will usually be definite (rather than the converse). But Colwell’s rule states that a PN which is probably definite as determined from the context which precedes a verb will usually be anarthrous. If we check the rule to see if it applies here, we would say that the previous mention of θεός (in 1:1b) is articular. Therefore, if the same person being referred to there is called θεός in 1:1c, then in both places it is definite. Although certainly possible grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative), the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in John 1:1c.

Further, calling θεός in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with λόγος (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem of this argument is that the θεός in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the θεός in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism.^[2]The Fourth Gospel is about the least likely place to find modalism in the NT.

Is Θεός in John 1:1c Qualitative?

The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ … θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμί is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).

Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.^[3]

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 266–269.

THREE FOOTNOTES I THOUGHT WERE RELEVANT:

[1] R. H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Philipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982) 54–55.

[2] Before 1933 NT commentators saw θεός as qualitative. For example, in Westcott’s commentary on John: “It is necessarily without the article (θεός not ὁ θεός) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say ‘the Word was ὁ θεός.’ ”

Robertson, Grammar, 767–68: “ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (convertible terms) would have been pure Sabellianism.… The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea.”

Lange’s commentary on John: “Θεός without the article signifies divine essence, or the generic idea of God in distinction from man and angel; as σάρξ, ver. 14, signifies the human essence or nature of the Logos. The article before θεός would here destroy the distinction of pesonality and confound the Son with the Father.”

Chemnitz says: “θεός sine artic. essentialiter, cum artic. personaliter.”

Alford points out: “The omission of the article before θεός is not mere usage; it could not have been here expressed, whatever place the words might hold in the sentence. ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός would destroy the idea of the λόγος altogether. θεός must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,—not ὁ θεός, ‘the Father,’ in Person.… as in σὰρξ ἐγένετο [John 1:14], σάρξ expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in θεὸς ἦν, θεός expresses that essence which was His ἐν ἀρχῇ:—that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,—was with God (the Father),—and was Himself God.”

Luther states it succinctly: “ ‘the Word was God’ is against Arius; ‘the Word was with God’ against Sabellius.”

[3] Although I believe that θεός in 1:1c is qualitative, the simplest and most straightforward translation is, “and the Word was God.” It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father, than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Father.

To the contrary of the three excerpts of the points made by this J-Dub apologist… the facts don’t fit the narrative.

A BONUS EXCERPT

Edmund C. Gruss, Apostles of Denial; an Examination and Expose of the History, Doctrine and Claims of the Jehovah’s Witness (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub Co, 1970). (FREE TO VIEW HERE)

PAGES 118-119

On page 776 of the Appendix the New World Translation translators quote from the recognized authority, A. T. Robertson, in support of their “a god” rendering: “Among the ancient writers ho theos was used of the god of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods.”³²(Supposedly proving that God with the definite article is to be distinguished from God without the article.) What the translators failed to include was Robertson’s further statement: “In the N. T. however, while we have pros ton theon (John 1:1, 2), it is far more common to find simply theos, especially in the Epistles.”³³

On pages 774 and 775 the translators quote Dana and Mantey who they misuse, as a check of these citations demon-strate.³⁴

To this evidence also may be added the weight of the great majority of the translations and versions now in existence, as well as almost every recognized Greek scholar. The writer has checked over twenty translations as well as many commentaries based on the Greek, and in every case (except for Moffatt’s and Goodspeed’s readings) the translation “the Word was God” or its equivalent was found.³⁵

One of the strongest arguments against the New World Translation reading is the fact that such a reading would be absolutely abominable to the Jewish ear. The Jews were strict monotheists and to accept the Witnesses’ translation would make John guilty of polytheism. The New Testament makes it clear that the believers were worshipping Christ (Matt. 14:83; 28:9, 17; John 20:28).³⁶

On page 107, the Jehovah’s Witnesses introduce four more verses, three of which are wrongly understood. The argument is as follows: (1) “Psalm 90:2 declares that God is `from everlasting to everlasting’.” (2) If this is true Jesus could not be God for He had a beginning. (3) Proof that Jesus Christ did have a beginning is found in Revelation 3:14; John 1:14; and Colossians 1:15.

Revelation 3:14 is quoted according to the New World Translation rendering which makes Christ “the beginning of the creation by God.” On the surface this verse seems to say that Christ was God’s first creation, but an examination of the scripture shows this understanding is not acceptable. The first thing which is erroneous is the translation of the verse. The translation “by God” cannot be justified, for the genetive tou theou, means “of God” and not “by God.” For the translation given by the Witnesses the genitive would require the proposition hupo, which is not found in the passage.³⁷The second word which is wrongly understood is the Greek word arche, translated “beginning.” Concerning

32 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (fourth edition; New York: George H. Doran Company, 1923), p. 761. Arndt-Gingrich state that then is used of “the true God, sometimes with, sometimes without the article.” Arndt-Gingrich, op. cit., p. 357.

33 Robertson, loc. cit.

34 Cf. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: The Macmillian Company, 1955), pp. 140, 148, 149. See Dr. Mantey’s own reaction in M. Van Buskirk’s The Scholastic Dishonesty of The Watchtower (Canis, P.O. Box 1783, Santa Ana, Calif. 92702).

35 An interesting and informative presentation on the deity of Christ with special reference to John 1:1 and the Witnesses’ official reply is found in the article by Victor Perry, “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Deity of Christ,” The Evangelical Quarterly, 35:15-22, January-March, 1963.

36 “For an excellent presentation on worship given to Christ see: Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), pp. 889-44.

37 “Dana and Mantey, op. cit., p. 112: “In fact, agency is expressed with the aid of hupo more frequently than it is by all the other methods combined.”

Page 208-211

5. Arbitrary use and non-use of capitals when dealing with the divine name. The place where this is especially evident is John 1:1 where the New World Translation translates “the Word was a god.” According to the Witnesses’ argument “god” appears here without the article. If this is the rule that the Witnesses themselves establish, why are they not consistent? In John 1: 18, which is a parallel passage, why have they not translated it: “No man has seen a god,” as there is no definite article before “God”? The same might be asked concerning Romans 8:8; Philippians 2:6; and Philippians 2:11. It also causes one to wonder, if Christ is “god” with a little “g,” how, when Thomas in John 20:28 gives his great declaration of faith to Christ’s deity, does the NWT have “My Master and my God.” It can be seen that the theos in John 20:28 is with the definite article, but how can the translators apply both “god” and “God” to Christ in the same book?

Other reviewers’ comments on the New World Translation of the Christian. Greek Scriptures. What do qualified men say concerning this Watch Tower translation? What is the purpose of the translation?

Ray C. Stedman writes:

. . . A close examination, which gets beneath the outward veneer of scholarship, reveals a veritable shambles of bigotry, ignorance, prejudice, and bias which violates every rule of biblical criticism and every standard of scholarly integrity.⁴²

Henry J. Heydt draws his conclusion:

“We consider the New World Translation a gross miscarriage of what a translation should be, and a biased travesty of God’s Holy Word.”⁴³

Martin and Klann conclude their chapter on the New World Translation with the following comments:

Once it is perceived that Jehovah’s Witnesses are only interested in what they can make the Scriptures say, and not in what the Holy Spirit has already perfectly revealed, then the careful student will reject entirely Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Watchtower translations.⁴⁴

F. E. Mayer shows the purpose of the translation as he writes:

The New World Translation sets forth other distinctive views which are essential to the entire doctrinal structure of the witnesses’ message. It is a version that lends support to the denial of doctrines which the Christian churches consider basic, such as the co-equality of Jesus Christ with the Father, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the survival of the human person after physical death. It teaches the annihilation of the wicked, the non-existence of hell, and the purely animal nature of man’s soul.⁴⁵

Lewis W. Spitz, writing in the Introduction to Mayer’s booklet, Jehovah’s Witnesses says:

The purpose of this translation is to support the basic tenets of the cult with the use of its own sectarian terminology. Theological discussions with the Witnesses will in the future prove more futile, for they will insist on using this translation as their authority. ⁴⁶

In his appraisal of the entire translation Anthony Hoekema says that:

their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which. many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself. ⁴⁸

In a balanced statement dealing with the New World Translation F. F. Bruce states that

some of its distinctive renderings reflect the biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah’s Witnesses (e.g. “‘the Word was a god” in John 1:1). . . . Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good. . . .⁴⁸

Bruce M. Metzger in his article “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ,” clearly shows the errors of many Christological passages found in the New World Translation. For the reader who either agrees or disagrees with this reviewer’s comments, this writer urges a study into the evidence presented by Metzger and the articles of the other reviewers cited.

Conclusion. After just this cursory look at the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures the honest mind can only conclude that this work, although outwardly scholarly, is plainly in many places, just the opposite. Its purpose is to bring the errors of the Witnesses into the Word of God. This translation carries no authority except to its originators and their faithful followers, and should be rejected as a perversion of the Word of God.

42 Ray C. Stedman, “The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures,” Our Hope, 50:34, July, 1953. p. 30.

43 Henry J. Heydt, Jehovah’s Witnesses: Their Translation (New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, Inc., [n. d.]), p. 9. John 13:18 has been revised in the 1961 edition., p. 19.

44 Walter R. Martin and Norman H. Klann, Jehovah of the Watchtower (sixth revised edition, 1963; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1953), p. 161.

45 F. E. Mayer, The Religious Bodies of America (fourth edition; St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1956), p. 469.

46 F. E. Mayer, Jehovah’s Witnesses (revised 196?; St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1942), p. 4.

47 Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), pp. 288, 239.

48 F. F. Bruce, The English Bible: A History of Translation (London: Lutterworth Press, 1961), p. 184.

PAGES 132-133

One Old Testament reference should be mentioned: in Isaiah 9:6 the Messiah is designated the “Mighty God,” even in the New World Translation. The Hebrew words translated “Mighty God” (el gibbor) in Isaiah 9:6 also appear in Isaiah 10:21. This reference uses the identical expression to identify Jehovah. Hoekema points out that this designation “is, in Old Testament literature, a traditional designation of Jehovah—see Deuteronomy 10:17, Jeremiah 32:18, and Nehemiah 9:32.”⁶⁶When Witnesses attempt to make a dis Unction and say that Christ is a “Mighty God” and Jehovah alone is the “Almighty God,” they must violate the Scriptures and teach polytheism. The New World Translation rendering of Isaiah 44:6-9 shows that the Witnesses are wrong: “‘. . . Besides me there is no God. . . . Does there exist a God besides me? No, there is no Rock’.”

True, others are designated “gods” (angels, idols, false gods, magistrates), but these are never made objects of true worship. Paul makes the situation clear in I Corinthians 8: 4-6: 4-6 :

. . . There is no God but one. For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him, and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him [NWT].

B. B. Warfield remarks cogently: “You cannot prove that only one God exists by pointing out that you yourself have two.”67 When the Witnesses admit that there is a “Mighty God” and an “Almighty God” they are doing just this and they make the admission that they are polytheists!

Arndt-Gingrich point out that Ignatius (died c. 110) calls Christ “God” in many passages.⁶⁸He is an important witness to the Christological thought of the early Church because he was born shortly before or after the ascension and his life spanned the writing of the New Testament. In his Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Romans he used such expressions as: “Jesus Christ our God,” “in the blood of God,” and “our God Jesus Christ” Ignatius also wrote: “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived in the womb of Mary…. God appeared in the likeness of man.” At another place he stated: “Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God.”⁶⁹It is evident that the Christological statements of John and Paul were preserved by Ignatius.

66 Anthony A. Hoekerna, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), p. 332.

67 Benjamin B. Warfieid, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1952), p. 75, 76.

68 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Earlij Christian luiteratitre, ed. and trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 367.

69 J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, ed. J. R. Harmer (1891 edition; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962), pp. 63-68, 75-79

J-Dubs Move a Comma (Luke 23:43)

Published July 3, 2023July 11, 2023 by Papa Giorgio

The following is a section from David Reed’s

Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses: Subject by Subject

Paradise

Since its release in 1982 the Watchtower Society’s book You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth has been the primary study text for prospective new converts. During its first fifteen months in print nearly 15 million copies were produced in 55 languages according to The Watchtower of January 1, 1984, page 28. As the book’s title indicates, it introduces readers to the hope that draws millions of people to become Jehovah’s Witnesses—the hope of everlasting life in a beautiful earthly paradise.

Such a promise is certainly attractive, especially for men and women who have not come to enjoy a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Not knowing anyone in heaven, why would they want to end up going there? In fact, coming face-to-face with God on his home turf can be a frightening thought for many. A subtropical paradise in an earth forever rid of poverty, sickness, and death proves more appealing to human nature. But is it truly biblical to proclaim this as the Christian hope?

The Greek word translated paradise appears three times in the New Testament—at Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 12:4, and Revelation 2:7—but Jehovah’s Witnesses largely ignore the two later verses and instead hang their hope on Jesus’ words to the dying criminal nailed up next to him, as these words appear in the JW New World Translation: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43) This constitutes Christ’s promise that the man would be resurrected more than two thousand years later to life on an earth transformed to a beautiful garden park, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe.

Unfortunately, however, the meaning of the verse in the New World Translation is affected by the anonymous translators’ choice to punctuate Luke 23:43 differently from the way it appears in most other Bibles. Placing the comma after the word “today” instead of before it, the NWT gives Jesus’ words a unique twist. It has Jesus speaking “today” to the man about being with him in paradise some time in the future, whereas the customary rendering with the comma before the word “today” indicates that they arrive in paradise that very day. Since ancient Greek manuscripts do not feature any punctuation to break the sentence into two parts, the comma’s location in English depends on the translator’s understanding of what is meant.

Interestingly, the Watchtower Society’s Comprehensive Concordance of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (pictured to the right – click to enlarge) lists dozens of passages where Jesus uses the expression “Truly I say to you” or “Truly I tell you.” (The same Greek word is rendered both “say” and “tell.”) Comparing these verses reveals that the Society’s translators punctuated them consistently—except Luke 23:43. Why did they punctuate that one verse differently? Perhaps because to do otherwise would disprove the Watchtower Society’s teaching that the dead go nowhere—that those who die cease to exist. Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught that it would be impossible for the dying man to go to Paradise that day, because he went into nonexistence pending a future resurrection.

Logically, though, there would be no need for Jesus to use the word “today” to point out when he was speaking. Whenever we open our mouth to speak, we are speaking “today,” and the fact is so obvious that we need not mention it unless making a contrast with something spoken on a different day. Here the context reveals nothing of that sort that would call for Jesus to verbalize the obvious fact that he was speaking “today.” Rather, the only time factor under discussion was the matter of when Jesus would be in Paradise. The man dying next to him begged, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Luke 23:42 NIV) Yes, Jesus would remember him. When? Today!

Moreover, it would be reasonable to assume that the Paradise Jesus spoke of as his destination after death would be the same Paradise that Revelation speaks of Christian overcomers going to: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” (Revelation 2:7 KJV) According to the Watchtower Society’s own publications, this verse speaks of a heavenly paradise, not an earthly one:

“Hence, the reference here must be to the heavenly gardenlike realm inherited by these conquerors. There, ‘in the paradise of God,’ yes, in the very presence of Jehovah himself, these overcomers who have been granted immortality will continue to live eternally, as symbolized here by their eating of the tree of life.”

—Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand! (page 37)

The Apostle Paul likewise speaks of paradise as heavenly rather than earthly. At 2 Corinthians 12:2–4 he speaks of being “caught up into paradise” which he also calls “the third heaven.”

Clearly, the earthly “paradise” Jehovah’s Witnesses are promised by their organization and the heavenly “paradise” the Bible promises for Christians are not one and the same.

David A. Reed, Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses: Subject by Subject, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997).

Apologetics To The Jehovah’s Witness – Properly Rendering Luke 23:43 & John 10:18

Here are the 1969 Kingdom Interlinear grabs from all the “Trulies” boxed off in the graphic above:

LUKE 4:24 (no comma needed)

LUKE 12:37 (normal placement)

LUKE 18:29 (normal placement)

LUKE 21:32 (normal placement)

LUKE 23:43 (abnormal placement)

See more at these links:

The verse comparison below has 4 from the Jehovah’s Witness website, in burgundy:

And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (ESV)
And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.” (New World Translation)
And Jesus said unto him, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (KJV)
And he said unto him, “Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” (American Standard Version)
and he said to him “I tell you verily, today you shall be with me in Paradise.” (The Bible in Living English)
And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.” (NASB)
Jesus said to him, “I promise you that today you will be in Paradise with me.” (Good News Translation)
He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (New American Bible)
Then Iesus said vnto him, Verely I say vnto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. (Geneva Bible of 1587)
“I tell you in solemn truth,” replied Jesus, “that this very day you shall be with me in Paradise.” (Weymouth New Testament)

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Polytheists? Mistranslation of John 1:1

Published June 28, 2023July 11, 2023 by Papa Giorgio

A “PART TWO” to this post is this one:

“J-Dub Apologist Willfully Distorts Christian Scholars on John 1:1“

(Originally posted in 2015 after a conversation with a J-Dub at Starbucks, video file updated)

In Bobby Conway’s post over at ONE MINUTE APOLOGIST, he notes the following:

How can we reply to a Jehovah’s Witness? It’s not necessary to translate Greek nouns lacking an article as indefinite. Even Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t consistent here. Rather, they use the indefinite article when it’s convenient to fit their theology. If they were consistent in their New World Translation, they’d have to utilize a before God in several other spots, even within John 1. For example, what do John 1:6, 1:12, 1:13, and 1:18 have in common? They’re all missing a definite article in the Greek before the word God. If Jehovah’s Witnesses were to translate these verses using the indefinite article, here’s how they would read:

“There came a man who was sent from a God” (John 1:6).
“He gave the right to become Children of a God” (John 1:12).
“Who were born…of a God” (John 1:13).
“No one has ever seen a God” (John 1:18).

As you can see, this would be a theological game changer. Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t facing the facts. And the fact is, Jesus is divine. He’s God in the flesh. Here’s a clear example of where cultic apologetics are won or lost in the Greek. The original languages don’t reveal a Jesus who is a god; rather, they reveal a Jesus who is God. It’s not the article (necessarily) that determines the translation of the word. It’s the context. Once Jesus becomes anything less than fully God and fully man, we’ve become a cult. Next time you talk to a Jehovah’s Witness, remember, words matter, especially when talking about the Word.

[I add some more examples:]

Matt 5:9 | Happy are the peacemakers, since they will be called sons of A God.
Matt 6:24 | No one can slave for two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will stick to the one and despise the other. You cannot slave for A God and for Riches.
Luke 1:35 | In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, A God’s Son.
Luke 2:40 | And the young child continued growing and getting strong, being filled with wisdom, and A God’s favor continued upon him.
John 1:6 | There came a man who was sent as a representative of A God; his name was John
John 1:12, 13 | However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become A God’s children. And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from A God. This one came to him in the night+ and said to him: “Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher, for no one can perform these signs that you perform unless A God is with him.”
John 3:21 | But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that his works may be made manifest as having been done in harmony with A God.”
John 9:16 | Some of the Pharisees then began to say: “This is not a man from A God, for he does not observe the Sabbath.” Others said: “How can a man who is a sinner perform signs of that sort?” So there was a division among them.
John 9:33 | “If this man were not from A God, he could do nothing at all.”
Rom 1:7 | to all those who are in Rome as A God’s beloved ones, called to be holy ones:
Rom 1:17-18 | For in it A God’s righteousness is being revealed by faith and for faith, just as it is written: “But the righteous one will live by reason of faith.” For A God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way,
1 Cor 1:30 | But it is due to him that you are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from A God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom,
Phil 2:11 | and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of A God the Father
Phil 2:13 | For A God is the one who for the sake of his good pleasure energizes you, giving you both the desire and the power to act.
Titus 1:1 | Paul, a slave of A God and an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of God’s chosen ones and the accurate knowledge of the truth that is according to godly devotion.

I realized — after posting on an encounter with a Jehovah’s Witness at Starbucks — that I do not have a lot posted on Jehovah’s Witnesses. I do on Mormonism, but not J-Dubs. (During the Iraq War Democrats called President George W. Bush, “Dubya.” I liked this shortening of his name for conversation ease. I transferred this ease over to Jehovah’s Witnesses as “J-Dub.”). So I will post some information via discussions I have had (on-line) over the years. The one I will clean up and post here deals with a quick presentation I give when a J-Dub is in front of a doughnut or coffee shop. All you have to do is memorize John 17:3, John 1:1… and where to go to enforce your point if conversation continues… but still have to get to work.

…The best way to dial in a cult is to see who they say Jesus is. In Orthodox Christian theology, Christ is eternal. Jesus is best reflected by this statement: He always was, He always is, and He always will be… Unmoved, Unchanged, Undefeated, and never Undone!

But in LDS (Mormon) theology, Jesus was born in heaven via sexual relations between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother; Lucifer is Jesus’ brother, born also via sexual relations between Heavenly Father and one of his many wives. So, in fact he is not eternal. Heavenly Father, e.g., God, was once a man as well. Prior to Heavenly Father being a man, he was born in a heaven to parents as well (he was born via sexual relations in a heaven and a earth). Therefore, in LDS theology, even Heavenly Father isn’t eternal. Nor is he unchanging – physically or spiritually – because he was once a man who had to follow a path to becoming his own God. Also, if Heavenly Father was born to parents, who were themselves born to parents, etc., etc.. Who were the first parents? How did they get here?

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the first creative act by God – Jehovah – was to create Michael the Archangel. It was Michael who came to earth as Jesus, and after went back to heaven as Michael. Both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus’ death on the cross was for their sins. His death was merely for Adam’s original sin, therefore, the Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness must earn their own salvation by doing good works to attain entrance into heaven. Christianity teaches that nothing man can do can please God. He is infinitely good, we are not. This is why Jesus’ sacrifice is so important to Christians: he lived the life we never could.

Okay, let me give you a quick refutation to share with the Jehovah’s Witness when they are at your door. Jehovah’s Witnesses are very adamant that they are monotheists, that is, they believe in one God. We do also, but we understand this one God as a trinity… do not get into the Trinity with them, this is the one subject they study the most. It takes a trained professional like me to refute their attacks on this doctrine.

You can ask them to turn to one of their favorite verses in their own bible (New World Translation), which is John 17:3:

This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you [Greek: that they may know you], the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ (NWT).

At this point you can ask them if Jehovah is the only true God. Make the point that any other God would be a false God, ask them: so people who believe in a God other than Jehovah believe in a false God?

At this point, when you get them to agree with you that there is only one true God, ask them to turn to John 1:1, which reads:

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God (NWT).

This is the clincher. Ask them if Jesus is a false God or a true God. Our Bible doesn’t put the athat I underlined; the Greek literally calls Jesus God Almighty. They may want to change the subject, or the like. Just keep pressing the issue – politely – that according to their own Bible they are polytheists (a person who believes in multiple gods), and are not monotheists…

Here is a conversion by an evangelist at a Jehovah’s Witness convention where the idea of John 1:1 and 17:3 are fleshed out:

Remember, J-Dubs consider themselves rabidly monotheistic, but as one scholar says below, “…It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.” Here is another conversation where the J-Dubs “multiple gods” view is applied to creation (from the 5:12 mark). And of course a CLASSIC presentation by the late/great Walter Martin.

The verses that one should be familiar with are used in the conversation on John 8:58-59. Both verses are worth memorizing defenses of, but the area I want to focus on are the Old Testament verses used in this discussion:

Gordon, Jesus clearly states He is God in John 8:58-59. It doesn’t need any explaining to a first century Jew. But to a 21st century honky (western-Caucasian man / a white boy / cracker), it does need explaining. And as you can see, the first century Jews tried to stone Jesus for claiming such (John 8:59 and John 10:31-33). The first century Jew could not stone a man for claiming to be “in one mind,” or in “the same step” as God. They could only stone him for the blasphemy of claiming to be God, not a god.

John 8:58 needs no explaining if you are familiar with the Bible. But if you are not, and do not understand Exodus 3:14, then you would have to have an explanation. But since you apparently understand Exodus 3:14, then you understand Jesus clear claim to be God. So you have corrected yourself.

In fact, this is what the ENTIRE trial of Jesus was about?! He was on trial for claiming to be God, and this claim eventually led to His crucifixion (Zechariah 12:10).

The talk of who God is should be consolidated as to create more room on the board for the other members.

“See now that I, I am He, and there is no God besides Me” (Deuteronomy 32:39 NASB)
“Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after me” (Isaiah 43:10 NASB)
“Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none” (Isaiah 44:8 NASB)
“I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5 NASB)

So it seems quite clear that when Jesus is called God, or even “a God” in John 1:1 (which John 17:3 says there is only One true God) – and is worshipped like God (which Matthew 4:10 reserves only for the One true God) – one must scratch his head in perplexity.

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses polytheists? They claim not to be, they claim to be monotheists. Mormons are polytheists, or more precisely – henotheists, they admit such (another example of why they are considered outside the “pale of orthodoxy”). The dilemma is (referencing John 17:3) that Jehovah Witnesses have two gods, and this cannot be reconciled with Deuteronomy 32:39 that “there is no God besides me;” or, John 17:3 which states “that they might know thee the only true God;” as well as God almighty calling Jesus God almighty in Hebrews 1:8-10. Alternatively Jesus clear statement to his deity (Godship) in John 8:58 and Matthew 22:41-46 (Jesus Himself making the comparison to Psalm 110:1).

When I talk to JW’s or LDS I drive the point home that Jesus would be a false god if he weren’t “God.” But this is something they can’t accept either… so the Bible must be wrong? But contrary to what Gordon says, Jesus clearly defined himself as – not a God – but thee God of the Shema.

And from Let Us Reason’s site, we find a list of leading and well-respected Greek language scholars ~ some even being quoted at one time as supporting the J-Dubs version in their own publications. I will embolden their names:

WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH’S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

Dr. J. J. Griesback: “So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth.”
Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): “With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek”. (Bill and Joan Cetnar Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses “who love the truth” p..55
Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): “The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 translated:’. . . the Word was a god’.a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov, 1985

Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text [pictured on the left of the graphic which is to the right] is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR [the NWT text is to the right of Westcott’s Greek text …click to enlarge]): “The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article… No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word… in the third clause `the Word’ is declared to be `God’ and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”

The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.).

“Numerous scholars with true credentials in the Biblical languages have condemned the Watchtower’s New World Translation as a fatal distortion of God’s written Word. For example, see The Bible Collector (July-December, 1971) issue which devotes three articles evaluating the Watchtower scripture.” ~ UK Apologetics

Dr. Anthony Hoekema, commented: Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into Modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself (The Four Major Cults, pp. 238, 239].
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.’ ” John 20:28
Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): “Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God’ in the phrase `And the Word was God’. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god’ would be totally indefensible.”
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland OR.): “The Jehovah’s Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.”
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): “I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”
Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation “has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation …. It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly “78 No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, “From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.”79 Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is “an insult to the Word of God.”
Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) “Therefore, the NWT rendering: “the Word was a god” is not a “literal” but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: “the word was God.” THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July – December, 1971 p. 12
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, “No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as ‘the Word was a god’. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.

DO ANY REPUTABLE GREEK SCHOLARS AGREE WITH THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

A. T. Robertson: “So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos.” A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.
E. M. Sidebottom:”…the tendency to write ‘the Word was divine’ for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.
C. K. Barrett: “The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity.” The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.
C. H. Dodd: “On this analogy, the meaning of _theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos… That is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase.” “New Testament Translation Problems the bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.
Randolph 0. Yeager: “Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ..and the Word was a God.’ The article with logos, shows that to logos is thesubject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate ‘…and the Word was God.’ John is not saying as Jehovah’s Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite.” The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.
Henry Alford: “Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,–not ho theos, ‘the Father,’ in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God–but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:–that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,–was with God (the Father),–and was Himself God.” (Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian ‘press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.
Donald Guthrie: “The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into t inking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that ‘the word was a God’ (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate.” New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.
Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: “Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, . . . `and the Word was a god,’ with the following footnotes: ” `A god,’ In contrast with `the God’ “. It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation.” “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ,” Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.
James Moffatt: “‘The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,’ simply means he Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.’ The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ….” Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.
E. C. Colwell: “…predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite -or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context,and in the case of John l:l this is not so.” A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.
Philip B. Harner: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it,”that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.””(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.
Philip Harner states in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) on Jn.1:1 “In vs. 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of ‘God’ for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense.” (pg. 86. Harner notes the source of this quote: Brown, John I-XII, 24)
Julius R. Mantey: “Since Colwell’s and Harner’s article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god.’ Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering …. In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years.” Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. “A Grossly Misleading Translation …. John 1:1, which reads ‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,’ is shockingly mistranslated, ‘Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,’ in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices o Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Statement JR Mantey, published in various sources.

COMMENTARY:

1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This One was in the beginning with God. Even the first readers of John’s Gospel must have noted the resemblance between the first phrase ἐν ἀρχῇ, “in the beginning,” and that with which Moses begins Genesis. This parallel with Moses was, no doubt, intentional on John’s part. The phrase points to the instant when time first began and the first creative act of God occurred. But instead of coming down from that first instant into the course of time, John faces in the opposite direction and gazes back into the eternity before time was. We may compare John 17:5; 8:58, and possibly Rev. 3:14, but scarcely ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς in Prov. 8:23, for in this passage “from the beginning” refers to Wisdom, a personification, of which v. 25 reports: “I was brought forth,” something that is altogether excluded as regards the divine person of the Logos.

In the Greek many phrases lack the article, which is not considered necessary, R. 791; so John writes ἐν ἀρχῇ. But in John’s first sentence the emphasis is on this phrase “in the beginning” and not on the subject “the Word.” This means that John is not answering the question, “Who was in the beginning?” to which the answer would naturally be, “God”; but the question, “Since when was the Logos?” the answer to which is, “Since all eternity.” This is why John has the verb ἦν, “was,” the durative imperfect, which reaches back indefinitely beyond the instant of the beginning. What R. 833 says about a number of doubtful imperfects, some of which, though they are imperfect in form are yet used as aorists in sense, can hardly be applied in this case. We, of course, must say that the idea of eternity excludes all notions of tense, present, past, and future; for eternity is not time, even vast time, in any sense but the absolute opposite of time—timelessness. Thus, strictly speaking, there is nothing prior to “the beginning,” and no duration or durative tense in eternity. In other words, human language has no forms of expression that fit the conditions of the eternal world. Our minds are chained to the concepts of time. Of necessity, then, when anything in eternity is presented to us, it must be by such imperfect means as our minds and our language afford. That is why the durative idea in the imperfect tense ἦν is superior to the punctiliar aoristic idea: In the beginning the Logos “was,” ein ruhendes und waehrendes Sein (Zahn)—“was” in eternal existence. All else had a beginning, “became,” ἐγένετο, was created; not the Logos. This—may we call it—timeless ἦν in John’s first sentence utterly refutes the doctrine of Arius, which he summed up in the formula: ἦν ὅτε οὑκ ἦν, “there was (a time) when he (the Son) was not.” The eternity of the Logos is co-equal with that of the Father.

Without a modifier, none being necessary for John’s readers and hearers, he writes ὁ λόγος, “the Word.” This is “the only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father,” v. 18. “The Logos” is a title for Christ that is peculiar to John and is used by him alone. In general this title resembles many others, some of them being used also by Christ himself, such as Light, Life, Way, Truth, etc. To imagine that the Logos-title involves a peculiar, profound, and speculative Logos-doctrine on the part of John is to start on that road which in ancient times led to Gnosticism and in modern times to strange views of the doctrine concerning Christ. We must shake off, first of all, the old idea that the title “Logos” is in a class apart from the other titles which the Scriptures bestow upon Christ, which are of a special profundity, and that we must attempt to penetrate into these mysterious depths. This already will release us from the hypothesis that John borrowed this title from extraneous sources, either with it to grace his own doctrine concerning Christ or to correct the misuse of this title among the churches of his day. Not one particle of evidence exists to the effect that in John’s day the Logos-title was used for Christ in the Christian churches in any false way whatever. And not one particle of evidence exists to the effect that John employed this title in order to make corrections in its use in the church. The heretical perversions of the title appear after the publication of John’s Gospel.

Philo’s and the Jewish-Alexandrian doctrine of a logos near the time of Christ has nothing to do with the Logos of John. Philo’s logos is in no sense a person but the impersonal reason or “idea” of God, a sort of link between the transcendent God and the world, like a mental model which an artist forms in his thought and then proceeds to work out in some kind of material. This logos, formed in God’s mind, is wholly subordinate to him, and though it is personified at times when speaking of it, it is never a person as is the Son of God and could not possibly become flesh and be born a man. Whether John knew of this philosophy it is impossible for us to say; he himself betrays no such knowledge.

As far as legitimate evidence goes, it is John who originated this title for Christ and who made it current and well understood in the church of his day. The observation is also correct that what this title expressed in one weighty word was known in the church from the very start. John’s Logos is he that is called “Faithful and True” in Rev. 19:11; see v. 13: “and his name is called The Word of God.” He is identical with the “Amen, the faithful and true witness,” in Rev. 3:14; and the absolute “Yea,” without a single contradictory “nay” in the promises of God in 2 Cor. 1:19, 20, to whom the church answers with “Amen.” This Logos is the revealed “mystery” of God, of which Paul writes Col. 1:27; 2:2; 1 Tim. 3:16; which he designates explicitly as “Christ.” These designations go back to the Savior’s own words in Matt. 11:27; 16:17. Here already we may define the Logos-title: the Logos is the final and absolute revelation of God, embodied in God’s own Son, Jesus Christ. Christ is the Logos because in him all the purposes, plans, and promises of God are brought to a final focus and an absolute realization.

But the thesis cannot be maintained that the Logos-title with its origin and meaning is restricted to the New Testament alone, in particular to the Son incarnate, and belongs to him only as he became flesh. When John writes that the Logos became flesh, he evidently means that he was the Logos long before he became flesh. How long before we have already seen—before the beginning of time, in all eternity. The denial of the Son’s activity as the Logos during the Old Testament era must, therefore, be denied. When John calls the Son the Logos in eternity, it is in vain to urge that v. 17 knows only about Moses for the Old Testament and Christ as the Logos only for the New. Creation takes place through the Logos, v. 3; and this eternal Logos is the life and light of men, v. 4, without the least restriction as to time (New as opposed to Old Testament time). The argument that this Logos or Word “is spoken” and does not itself “speak” is specious. This would require that the Son should be called ὁ λεγόμενος instead of ὁ λόγος. The Logos is, indeed, spoken, but he also speaks. As being sent, given, brought to us we may stress the passive idea; as coming, as revealing himself, as filling us with light and life, the active idea is just as true and just as strong.

This opens up the wealth of the Old Testament references to the Logos. “And God said, Let there be light,” Gen. 1:4. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” Gen. 1:26. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,” Heb. 11:3. “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made.… For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast,” Ps. 33:6 and 9. “He sent his word,” Ps. 107:20; 147:15. These are not mere sounds that Jehovah uttered as when a man utters a command, and we hear the sound of his words. In these words and commands the Son stands revealed in his omnipotent and creative power, even as John says in v. 3: “All things were made by him.” This active, omnipotent revelation “in the beginning” reveals him as the Logos from all eternity, one with the Father and the Spirit and yet another, namely the Son.

He is the Angel of the Lord, who meets us throughout the Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi, even “the Angel of the Presence,” Isa. 63:9. He is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he was before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell,” Col. 1:15–19. This is the revelation of the Logos in grace. The idea that by the Logos is meant only the gospel, or the gospel whose content is Christ, falls short of the truth. “Logos” is a personal name, the name of him “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,” Micah 5:2. And so we define once more, in the words of Besser, “The Word is the living God as he reveals himself, Isa. 8:22; Heb. 1:1, 2.” Using a weak human analogy, we may say: as the spoken word of a man is the reflection of his inmost soul, so the Son is “the brightness of his (the Father’s) glory, and the express image of his person,” Heb. 1:3. Only of Jesus as the Logos is the word true, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” John 16:9; and that other word, “I and my Father are one,” John 10:30.

And the Word was with God, πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Here we note the first Hebrew trait in John’s Greek, a simple coordination with καί, “and,” followed in a moment by a second. The three coordinate statements in v. 1 stand side by side, and each of the three repeats the mighty subject, “the Word.” Three times, too, John writes the identical verb ἦν, its sense being as constant as that of the subject: the Logos “was” in all eternity, “was” in an unchanging, timeless existence. In the first statement the phrase “in the beginning” is placed forward for emphasis; in the second statement the phrase “with God” is placed at the end for emphasis.

In the Greek Θεός may or may not have the article, for the word is much like a proper noun, and in the Greek this may be articulated, a usage which the English does not have. Cases in which the presence or the absence of the article bears a significance we shall note as we proceed. The preposition πρός, as distinct from ἐν, παρά, and σύν, is of the greatest importance. R. 623 attempts to render its literal force by translating: “face to face with God.” He adds 625 that πρός is employed “for living relationship, intimate converse,” which well describes its use in this case. The idea is that of presence and communion with a strong note of reciprocity. The Logos, then, is not an attribute inhering in God, or a power emanating from him, but a person in the presence of God and turned in loving, inseparable communion toward God, and God turned equally toward him. He was another and yet not other than God. This preposition πρός sheds light on Gen. 1:26, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

Now comes the third statement: And the Word was God. In English we place the predicate last, while in the Greek it is placed first in order to receive the fullest emphasis. Here Θεός must omit the article thus making sure that we read it as the predicate and not as the subject, R. 791. “ ‘The Word was with God.’ This sounds, speaking according to our reason, as though the Word was something different from God. So he turns about, closes the circle, and says, ‘And God was the Word.’ ” Luther. God is the Word, God himself, fully, completely, without diminution, in very essence. What the first statement necessarily involves when it declares that already in the beginning the Word was; what the second statement clearly involves when it declares the eternal reciprocal relation between the Word and God—that is declared with simple directness in the third statement when the Word is pronounced God with no modifier making a subtraction or limitation. And now all is clear; we now see how this Word who is God “was in the beginning,” and how this Word who is God was in eternal reciprocal relation with God. This clarity is made perfect when the three ἦν are seen to be eternal, shutting out absolutely a past that in any way is limited. The Logos is one of the three divine persons of the eternal Godhead.

2) And now the three foregoing sentences are joined into one: This One was in the beginning with God. Just as we read “the Word,” “the Word,” “the Word,” three times, like the peals of a heavenly bell, like a golden chord on an organ not of earth sounding again and again, so the three rays of heavenly light in the three separate sentences fuse into one—a sun of such brightness that human eyes cannot take in all its effulgence. “It is as if John, i.e., the Spirit of God who reveals all this to him, meant to bar from the beginning all the attempts at denial which in the course of dogmatical and historical development would arise; as though he meant to say: I solemnly repeat, The eternal Godhead of Christ is the foundation of the church, of faith, of true Christology!” G. Mayer.

The Greek has the handy demonstrative οὗτος with which it sums up emphatically all that has just been said concerning a subject. In English we must use a very emphatic “he” or some equivalent like “this One,” “the Person,” or “the same” (our versions), although these equivalents are not as smooth and as idiomatic as οὗτος is in the Greek. Verse 2 does not intend to add a new feature regarding the Logos; it intends, by repeating the two phrases from the first two sentences, once more with the significant ἦν, to unite into a single unified thought all that the three preceding sentences have placed before us in coordination. So John writes “this One,” re-emphasizing the third sentence, that the Word was God; then “was in the beginning,” re-emphasizing the first sentence, that the Word was in the beginning; finally “with God,” re-emphasizing the second sentence, that the Word was in reciprocal relation with God. Here one of the great characteristics of all inspired writing should not escape us; realities that transcend all human understanding are uttered in words of utmost simplicity yet with flawless perfection. The human mind cannot suggest an improvement either in the terms used or in the combination of the terms that is made. Since John’s first words recall Genesis 1, we point to Moses, the author of that first chapter, as another incomparable example of inspired writing—the same simplicity for expressing transcendent thought, the same perfection in every term and every grammatical combination of terms. Let us study Inspiration from this angle, i.e., from what it has actually produced throughout the Bible. Such study will both increase our faith in Inspiration and give us a better conception of the Spirit’s suggestio rerum et verborum.

3) The first four sentences belong together, being connected, as they are, by two καί and the resumptive οὗτος. They present to us the person of the Logos, eternal and very God. Without a connective v. 3 proceeds with the first work of the Logos, the creation of all things. All things were made through him; and without him was not made a single thing that is made. The negative second half of this statement re-enforces and emphasizes the positive first half. While John advances from the person to the work, this work substantiates what is said about the person; for the Logos who created all things must most certainly be God in essence and in being.

“All things,” πάντα without the article, an immense word in this connection, all things in the absolute sense, the universe with all that it contains. This is more than τὰ πάντα with the article, which would mean all the things that exist at present, while πάντα covers all things present, past, and future. While the preposition διά denotes the medium, Rom. 11:36 and Heb. 2:10 show that the agent himself may be viewed as the medium; hence “through him,” i.e., the Logos, must not be read as though the Logos was a mere tool or instrument. The act of creation, like all the opera ad extra, is ascribed to the three persons of the God-head and thus to the Son as well as to the Father; compare the plural pronouns in Gen. 1:26.

The verb ἐγένετο, both in meaning and in tense, is masterly. The translation of our versions is an accommodation, for the verb means “came into existence,” i.e., “became” in this sense. The existence of all things is due to the Logos, not, indeed, apart from the other persons of the Godhead but in conjunction with them, as is indicated throughout the creative speaking in Gen. 1. “All things came into being” since the beginning, the Logos through whom they were called into being existed before the beginning, from eternity. The verb “became” is written from the point of view of the things that entered existence, while in Genesis the verb “created” is written from the viewpoint of God, the Creator. John repeats ἐγένετο in the negative part of his statement and adds the perfect tense γέγονεν in the attached relative clause. These repetitions emphasize the native meaning of this verb. As creatures of the Logos “all things became.”

The punctiliar tense, a historical aorist, is in marked contrast to the durative imperfect of the four preceding ἦν. This aorist goes back to the creative acts of Gen. 1. These acts are fundamental; for all creatures that came into existence in the later course of time have their origin in the creative acts of that wonderful week recorded in Genesis. We may thus pass down through the centuries, even to the last day of time, and always it will be true: ὁ κόσμος διʼ αὑτοῦ ἐγένετο, “the world was made through him,” v. 10, where this significant verb is repeated for the fourth time.

John’s positive statement is absolute. This the negative counterpart makes certain: and without him was not a single thing made that is made. Whereas the plural πάντα covers the complete multitude or mass, the strong singular οὐδὲ ἕν points to every individual in that mass and omits none. “Not one thing” is negative; hence also the phrase with the verb is negative, “became without him” or apart from him and his creative power. Apart from the Logos is nihil negativum et privativum. Yet in both the positive and the negative statements concerning the existence of all things and of every single thing the implication stands out that the Logos himself is an absolute exception. He never “became” or “came into existence.” No medium (διά) is in any sense connected with his being. The Son is from all eternity “the uncreated Word.”

The relative clause ὃ γέγονεν is without question to be construed with ἕν and cannot be drawn into the next sentence. We need not present all the details involved in this statement since the question must be considered closed. The margin of the R. V., which still offers the other reading, is incorrect and confusing. No man has ever been able to understand the sense of the statement, “That which hath been made was life in him.” Linguistically the perfect tense with its present force, γέγονεν, clashes quite violently with the following imperfect tense ἦν, so violently that the ancient texts were altered, changing οὑδὲ ἕν into οὑδέν, and ζωὴ ἧν into ζωή ἐστιν. But even these textual alterations fail to give satisfaction apart from the grave question of accepting them as the true reading of the text. So we read, “And without him not a single thing that exists came into existence.” The perfect tense γέγονεν, of course, has a present implication and may be translated, “that exists” or “that is made.” But the perfect tense has this force only as including the present result of a past act. The perfect always reaches from the past into the present. The single thing of which John speaks came into existence in the past and only thus is in existence now. What John thus says is that every single thing that now exists traces its existence back to the past moment when it first entered existence. Thus the aorist ἐγένετο is true regarding all things in the universe now or at any time. Every one of them derives its existence from the Logos. Since γέγονεν as a perfect tense includes past origin, we should not press its present force so as to separate the past creative acts of the Logos from the present existence of the creature world.

C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 27–38.

Jehovah’s Witness “Issues” ~ A Couple Topics

Published June 24, 2023June 24, 2023 by Papa Giorgio

(Originally posted in 2015, updated with a few quotes for clarity) This is posted here in the hopes that Edwin, a Jehovah’s Witness I bumped into at Starbucks, will look at the following information that I promised I would reference for him. It backs up a bit more what cannot be explained fully in general conversation.

(Click To Enlarge)

In case you cannot read the writing on the picture, it says:

4 of the 5 on N.W.T. committee know no Hebrew or Greek
[Fred Franz] lied about being a Rhodes Scholar. Only 2-years of college.
[G.D. Gangas] Short order cook from Ohio who confessed 0 knowledge of Hebrew & Greek.

A Few Words From One Amazing Man Raymond Franz

Pictured above (click to enlarge) is the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ (J-Dubs) of 1975. The circled names are the people of the New World Translation Committee, which, more information is below. The New World Translation is the Bible “version” that the J-Dubs use.

Who Were The Translators?

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has failed both the public and its own followers at this most crucial point, as they refuse to give the names and credentials of the translators of The New World Translation. The Watchtower’s Bible subject index handbook, Reasoning from the Scripture, states: “When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request” (pg. 277).

The reason cited is because the “translators were not seeking prominence for themselves.” However, the fact is that the men who comprised this committee had no adequate schooling or background to function as skilled critical Bible translators.

The translation committee was headed by (then vice -president of the Jehovah’s Witnesses), Frederick W.Franz. Other members included Nathan H. Knorr (then president of the Jehovah’s Witnesses), Albert D. Schroeder, Ceorge D. Gangas and Milton Henschel.

The information as to the identity of the translation committee was made known by former Jehovah’s Witness William Cetnar. (See further, We Left lehovah’s Witnesses, A Non-Profit Organization; Edmond C. Gruss.) Cetnar was able to supply this information as he worked at the International Headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses during the time the translation was being prepared.

In addition, former member of the Watchtower’s Governing Body, Raymond V. Franz, in his book, Crisis of Conscience, lists the translators’ names as Franz, Knorr, Schroeder and Cangas. His list omits Henschel. Franz further acknowledges his uncle Frederick Franz as the “principal translator of the Society’s New World Translation” (Crisis, pg. 50).

Yet, Frederick Franz’s translation ability is open to serious question.

During a court trial held in Scotland in 1954 (during the same period that the New World Translation was being made) Franz was asked if he had made himself familiar with Hebrew. His reply was “Yes.” He also acknowledged under oath that he could read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French. The following day, during the same court trial, his linguistic abilities were put to the test.

He was asked to translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew. He failed the test as he was unable to do so. In fact he did not even try, but rather stated “No, I wouldn’t attempt to do that.”

(See, Court of Session, Scotland – Douglas Walsh vs. The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde – November 1954.)

MORE BELOW!

When I open up my ESV Study Bible, I see the contributing editors, their education and titles/names — as well as everyone involved in the study notes — their education and titles/names, as well as (and most importantly), the Translators. This is not the case as you can see from the front page of the New World Translation, to the right (click to enlarge). And when we did find out who these translators were, none knew Greek or Hebrew at all!

If someone find’s an issue with the ESV translation (or any other Bible translation) they can contact people and discuss it. Not so with the NWT.

The main problem is that the Watchtower gives ALL truth that is to be believed by the Jehovah’s Witness. I will show an example, and I quote the founder, Charles Taze Russell:

If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically the Bible, topically arranged with Bible proof texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes THE BIBLE IN AN ARRANGED FORM. That is to say, they are not mere comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself….

Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years – if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood the Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. on the other hand, if he had merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.

>> Charles Taze Russell, The Watch Tower (September 15, 1910), page 298. (See more here)

Even if you’ve read the Scripture Studies for ten years, and you lay them aside and read the Bible for two years alone, you enter into darkness?!

THAT was a revealing quote.

It shows how brainwashed Jehovah’s Witnesses are to the fact that the ruling council and president of the Watchtower Society dispense nothing but truth and reality while the rest of humanity who points out the misquotes and misrepresentations are shunned as devils (almost literally).

You might say however, “yeah… but that was alll the way back in 1910.” I agree, let’s update that idea a bit. The Watchtower (August 15, 1981) condemns those who:

say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home…. Through such “Bible reading,” they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago…

In a court case where the the third president of the Watchtower Organization, Nathan Knorr (president from 1942-1977, who, at the age 16 left the Reformed Church to be baptized as a Jehovah’s Witness), gave testimony about “what” the watchtower Magazine really was:

Q. But yon don’t make any such statement, that you are subject to correction, in your Watch Tower papaers, do you?
A. Not that. I recall.

Q: In fact it is set forth directly as God’s word, isn’t it?
A: Yes, as His word.

Q: Without any qualification whatsoever?
A: That is right.

Olin Moyle v. WTBTS [1943], section#4421 (WIKI – the full text is here, but the text gets a bit jumbled) | Duane Magnani, The Watchtower Files: Dialogue With a Jehovah’s Witness (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1985), 17. (<< That is one of the best books on J-Dubs in my opinion. It is out of print but used copies are cheap.) (More here)

One ex-Jehovah’s Witness said he was clearly told that to gain eternal life, certain things were necessary. One was to “study the Bible diligently, and only through Watchtower publications” (Edmond C. Gruss, We Left Jehovah’s Witnesses: Personal Testimonies [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1974], 41).

I will go out on a limb here and say, “if the devil were to create a religious group that undermines the true message in the Bible, would the devil require someone to read the Bible by itself… or would the devil want to add something to it that would interpret everything within?”

Who are the real followers of whom?

Liars?

Nor were the leaders/translators honest men. In this first example, Charles T. Russell sued J. J. Ross for “defamatory libel” on March 1913. Ross in his booklet, Some Facts About The Self-Styled Pastor C. T. Russell wrote, “Russell does not know the dead languages.” Unfortunately for Russell, he proved himself wrong in the court room:

Attorney Staunton: “Do you know the Greek alphabet?”
Russell: “Oh, yes.”
Attorney Staunton: “Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?”
Russell: “Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them.”
Attorney Staunton: “Would you tell me the names of those on top of the, page, page 447 I have got here?” (Wescott & Hort Greek NT)
Russell: “Well, I don’t know that I would be able to.”
Attorney Staunton: “You can’t tell what those letters are, look at them and see if you know?
Russell: “My way . . .” (he was interrupted at this point and not allowed to explain) Attorney Staunton: “Are you familiar with the Greek language?
Russell: “NO”.

(Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 6)

This next example comes from the Scottish Court and is the dialogue between Frederick Franz and the court attorney:

From the Pursuer’s Proof of the cross-examination held on Wednesday, November 24, 1954, p. 7, paragraphs A-B. Examining Fred W. Franx, vice-president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and sent as representative of the Society and the Translation Comm.

Attorney: Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
Franz: Yes.
Attorney: So that you have a substantion linguistic apparatus at your command?
Franz: Yes, for use in my biblical work.
Attorney: I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French?
Franz Yes.

…later in the same examination…

Attorney: You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
Franz: I do not speak Hebrew.
Attorney: You do not?
Franz: No.
Attorney: Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
Franz: Which?
Attorney: That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis?
Franz: You mean here?
Attorney: Yes.
Franz: No.

We asked a Hebrew teacher at Biola College/Talbot Theological Seminary if the fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis was a particularly difficult verse to translate. After all, the pursuer’s question would hardly have been fair if it were the hardest verse in the Old Testament to translate. The professor said that he would never pass a first-year Hebrew student who could not translate that verse.

(Equip.org)

See my actual letter I wrote and compiled for a co-worker who was a Jehovah’s Witness.

My letter to Ron, a co-worker & J-Dub

NWT “Translators” vs. ESV as an example:

Oversight Committee

The positions and degrees shown below reflect those held during the translation process and may have changed since.

Dr. Clinton E. Arnold
Professor of New Testament and Chair of New Testament Department, Biola University
BA, Biola College
MDiv, Talbot Theological Seminary
PhD, University of Aberdeen

Dr. Clifford John Collins, ESV Old Testament Chair
Professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary
SB, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
SM, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MDiv, Faith Evangelical Lutheran Seminary
PhD, University of Liverpool

Dr. Lane T. Dennis, ESV Publishing Chair
President and Publisher, Crossway
BS, Northern Illinois University
MDiv, McCormick Theological Seminary
PhD, Northwestern University

Dr. Wayne A. Grudem
Research Professor, Theology and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary
BA, Harvard University
MDiv, Westminster Theological Seminary
PhD, Cambridge University

Dr. Paul R. House, ESV Old Testament Associate Chair
Associate Dean and Professor of Divinity, Old Testament Studies, Beeson Divinity School
BA, Southwest Baptist University
MA, University of Missouri-Columbia
MDiv, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Dr. R. Kent Hughes
Senior Pastor Emeritus, College Church in Wheaton
BA, Whittier College
MDiv, Talbot Theological Seminary
DMin, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
ThM, Fuller Theological Seminary
PhD, University of Aberdeen

Dr. J. I. Packer, ESV General Editor
Board of Governors Professor of Theology, Regent College, Vancouver, Canada
BA, Oxford University
MA, Oxford University
DPhil, Oxford University

Dr. Leland Ryken, ESV Literary Chair
Professor of English, Wheaton College
BA, Central College
PhD, University of Oregon

Dr. Vern Sheridan Poythress, ESV New Testament Chair
Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Westminster Theological Seminary; Editor, Westminster Theological Journal
BS, California Institute of Technology
PhD, Harvard University
MDiv, Westminster Theological Seminary
ThM, Westminster Theological Seminary
MLitt, Cambridge University
DTh, University of Stellenbosch

Dr. Frank Thielman
Professor of Divinity, New Testament, Beeson Divinity School
BA, Wheaton College
BA, Cambridge University
MA, Cambridge University
PhD, Duke University

Dr. Gordon Wenham, Old Testament Associate Chair
Old Testament Tutor at Trinity College, Bristol; Emeritus Professor of Old Testament, University of Gloucestershire
BA, Cambridge University
MA, Cambridge University
PhD, Kingâs College, London University

Dr. P. J. Williams
Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge
MA, Cambridge University
MPhil, Cambridge University
PhD, Cambridge University

Dr. Bruce Winter
Principal, Queensland Theological College, Queensland, Australia
BA, University of Queensland
MTheo, SEA Graduate School
PhD, Macquarie University

Previous Translation Oversight Committee Members

Emeritus Members: Dr. Robert H. Mounce; Dr. William D. Mounce
Previous Adjunct Members: Rev. David Jones; Rev. E. Marvin Padgett

Review Scholars

The positions and degrees shown below reflect those held during the translation process and may have changed since.

Dr. T. D. Alexander
Director of the Christian Training Centre, Union Theological College, Belfast
BA, The Queen’s University of Belfast
PhD, The Queen’s University of Belfast

Dr. Clinton E. Arnold
Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Talbot School of Theology
BA, Biola University
MDiv, Talbot Theological Seminary
PhD, University of Aberdeen

Dr. David W. Baker
Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Ashland Theological Seminary
BA, Temple University
MCS, Regent College
MPhil, University of London
PhD, University of London

Dr. William D. Barrick
Professor of Old Testament, The Master’s Seminary
BA, Denver Baptist Bible College
MDiv, San Francisco Theological Seminary
ThM, San Francisco Theological Seminary
ThD, Grace Theological Seminary

Dr. Hans F. Bayer
Associate Professor of New Testament, Covenant Seminary
MA, Ashland Theological Seminary
MDiv, Ashland Theological Seminary
PhD, University of Aberdeen

Dr. Gregory Beale
Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College
BA, Southern Methodist University
MA, Southern Methodist University
ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary
PhD, Cambridge University

Dr. Ronald Bergey
Professeur d’Hébreu et d’Ancient Testament, Faculté libre de Théologie réformée, Aix-en-Provence, France
BS, Philadelphia College of Bible
MA, Jerusalem University
PhD, Dropsie University

Dr. Daniel I. Block
John R. Sampey Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
BEd, University of Saskatchewan
BA, University of Saskatchewan
MA, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
PhD, University of Liverpool

Dr. Craig L. Blomberg
Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary
BA, Augustana College
MA, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
PhD, University of Aberdeen

Dr. Darrell L. Bock
Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
BA, University of Texas at Austin
ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary
PhD, University of Aberdeen

Dr. Irvin A. Busenitz
Vice President for Academic Administration, Professor of Bible Exposition and Old Testament, The Master’s Seminary
BA, Grace College of the Bible
MDiv, Talbot Theological Seminary
ThM, Talbot Theological Seminary
ThD, Grace Theological Seminary

Mr. Edward H. Chandler
Ph.D. (cand.), Catholic University of America
MDiv, Covenant Seminary

Dr. Daniel L. Gard
Dean of Graduate Studies, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN
BA, Carthage College
MDiv, Concordia Theological Seminary
MA, University of Notre Dame
PhD, University of Notre Dame

Dr. Robert P. Gordon
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge University
MA, Cambridge University
PhD, Cambridge University

Dr. Gene L. Green
Associate Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College
B.A., Wheaton College
MA, Wheaton College Graduate School
PhD, University of Aberdeen

Dr. Michael Grisanti
Associate Professor of Old Testament, The Master’s Seminary
BA, Pillsbury Baptist Bible College
MDiv, Central Baptist Theological Seminary
ThM, Central Baptist Theological Seminary
PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary

Dr. George H. Guthrie
Associate Professor of Christian Studies, Union University
BA, Union University
MDiv, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
ThM, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
PhD, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Dr. Scott J. Hafemann
Professor, Hawthorne Chair of New Testament Greek and Exegesis, Wheaton College
BA, Bethel College
MA, Fuller Theological Seminary
D.Theol, University of Tübingen

Dr. Charles D. Harvey
Visiting Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies, Taylor University
BA, Taylor University
MDiv, Reformed Theological Seminary
PhD, University of Edinburgh

Dr. Richard S. Hess
Professor of Old Testament, Denver Seminary
BA, Wheaton College
MDiv, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
ThM, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
PhD, Hebrew Union College

Dr. Harold W. Hoehner
Senior Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
BA, Barrington College
ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary
ThD, Dallas Theological Seminary
PhD, Cambridge University

Dr. David M. Howard
Jr. Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
BS, Geneva College
MA, Wheaton College
PhD, University of Michigan

Dr. Gordon P. Hugenberger
Senior Pastor, Park Street Church, Boston, MA
BA, Harvard University
MDiv, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
PhD, College of St. Paul and St. Mary

Dr. Philip Johnston
Professor of Old Testament, Wycliff Hall, UK
BA, University of Cambridge
BD, Queen’s University, Belfast
MTh, Queen’s University, Belfast
PhD, University of Cambridge

Dr. Reggie McReynolds Kidd
Associate Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, FL
BA, College of William and Mary
MAR, Westminster Theological Seminary
MDiv, Westminster Theological Seminary
PhD, Duke University

Dr. Nobuyoshi Kiuchi
Professor of Old Testament, Tokyo Christian University
BA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
PhD, The Council for National Academic Awards

Dr. Andreas J. Köstenberger
Associate Professor of New Testament, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Mag. et Dr. rer. soc. oec., Vienna University of Economics
MDiv, Columbia Biblical Seminary
PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Dr. V. Philips Long
Professor of Old Testament, Regent College
BA, Wheaton College
MDiv, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
PhD, Cambridge University

Dr. Ernest Lucas
Professor of Old Testament, Bristol Baptist College
MA, Regent’s Park College
PhD, University of Liverpool

Dr. Dennis R. Magary
Associate Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
BA, Fort Wayne Bible College
MDiv, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
MA, University of Wisconsin-Madison
PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Dr. Walter A. Maier, III
Professor of Old Testament, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN
BA, Concordia College
MDiv, Concordia Theological Seminary
MA, Harvard University
PhD, Harvard University

Dr. J. Gordon McConville
Professor of Old Testament, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education
BA, Cambridge University
MA, University of Edinburgh
Ph.D., The Queen’s University of Belfast

Dr. Christopher Mitchell
Theological Editor, Concordia Publishing House
BS, University of Wisconsin-Madison
MA, University of Wisconsin-Madison
MDiv, Concordia Seminary
PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Dr. Leon Morris
Former Principal of Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia
BSc, Sydney University
ThL, Australian College of Theology
BD, London University
MTh, [university not on file]
ThD, Cambridge University

Dr. Russell Nelson
Professor of Religious Studies, Division Chair, Concordia University College of Alberta
BA, Concordia Senior College
MDiv, Concordia Seminary in Exile, St. Louis
PhD, Harvard University

Dr. Raymond Ortlund, Jr.
Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Augusta, GA
BA, Wheaton College
ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary
MA, University of California-Berkeley
PhD, University of Aberdeen

Dr. Douglas A. Oss
Pastor, Capital Christian Center, Salt Lake City, UT
BA, Western Washington University
MDiv, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary
PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary

Dr. John N. Oswalt
Research Professor of Old Testament, Wesley Biblical Seminary
BA, Taylor University
BD, Asbury Theological Seminary
ThM, Asbury Theological Seminary
MA, Brandeis University
PhD, Brandeis University

Dr. Iain Provan
Marshall Sheppard Professor of Biblical Studies, Regent College
BA, London Bible College
MA, Glasgow University
PhD, Cambridge University

Dr. Paul R. Raabe
Professor of Exegetical Theology, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO
BS, Concordia Teachers College
MDiv, Concordia Theological Seminary
MA, Washington University
PhD, University of Michigan

Dr. Thomas Renz
Professor of Old Testament, Oak Hill Theological College-London, UK
MDiv (equivalent), Freie Theologische Akademie, Giessen, Germany
PhD, Bristol University
Mr. Max Rogland
Ph.D. (cand.) Leiden University
BA, B.Mus., University of Washington
MDiv, Covenant Theological Seminary

Dr. Allen Ross
Former Professor of Old Testament, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry
ThD, Dallas Seminary
PhD, Cambridge University

Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner
Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
BS, Western Oregon University
MDiv, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary
ThM, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary
PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary

Dr. Moises Silva
BA, Bob Jones University
BD, Westminster Theological Seminary
ThM, Westminster Theological Seminary
PhD, University of Manchester

Dr. Frank S. Thielman
Associate Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School
BA, Wheaton College
BA, Cambridge University
MA, Cambridge University
PhD, Duke University

Dr. Willem A. VanGemeren
Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies, Director of the PhD in Theological Studies, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Diploma, Moody Bible Institute
BA, University of Illinois, Chicago
BD, Westminster Theological Seminary
MA, University of Wisconsin
PhD, University of Wisconsin

Dr. James W. Voelz
Professor of Exegetical Theology, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo.
AA, Concordia College
BA, Concordia Senior College
MDiv, Concordia Theological Seminary
PhD, Cambridge University

Dr. Daniel B. Wallace
Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
BA, Biola University
ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary
PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary

Dr. Dean O. Wenthe
President, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN
BA, Concordia Senior College
MA, University of Notre Dame
MDiv, Concordia Seminary
ThM, Princeton Theological Seminary
PhD, University of Notre Dame

Dr. Walter W. Wessel
Former Professor of New Testament, Bethel Seminary–West
BA, UCLA
MA, UCLA
PhD, University of Edinburgh

Dr. Robert W. Yarbrough
Associate Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
BA, Southwest Baptist College
MA, Wheaton College Graduate School
PhD, University of Aberdeen

An Example of Translation Openness (ESV vs. NWT)

Published March 5, 2018June 23, 2023 by Papa Giorgio