e-Watchman.com

21. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible, why does it alter the word of God by twice adding the words “relation to” in Mt 5:19, when this phrase does not exist in the Greek? See Gr-Engl Interlinear. How would this verse read if the phrase “relation to” had not been added to it and what would this say about who can enter the kingdom of heaven? If only 144,000 people will go to heaven, why does scripture say in this verse that “ANYONE who does them (the commandments) and teaches them…” will be called great “in the kingdom of the heavens.”? What does the word “anyone” mean to you?

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

In answer to the question, as to how the verse would read without adding the words in "relation to," it reads in the NIV as follows: "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Apparently, the questioner supposes that the expression "in the kingdom of the heaven" means that the keeper of the commandments receives a heavenly reward. That, though, is not what Jesus was saying. This is apparent from the fact that he said that those who break the commands will be called "least in the kingdom of heaven." Are we to suppose that those who break God's commands and mislead others to do the same will still go to heaven, but that they will merely have a lesser place than those who keep God's laws? According to the mind-twisting illogic of the questioner, that is the conclusion we would have to draw. After all, it says that they will be least "in the kingdom of heaven"—so they have to be in heaven, right?

That would mean that Paul didn't know what he was talking about when he told the Corinthians that fornicators and adulterers would not inherit the kingdom. Such convoluted reasoning in itself would appear to justify why the NWT added "in relation" to clarify that particular text.

22. If the earth will never be destroyed or depopulated, how can it be, then, that God says in Isa 51:6, "... the earth itself will wear out, and its inhabitants themselves will die like a mere gnat...", and that John says in Rev 21:1 that he saw "... a new heaven and a NEW earth; for the former heaven and the FORMER earth had PASSED AWAY, and the sea is NO MORE."? Similarly, if the WTS’s teaching that the earth will never be destroyed or depopulated is correct, then why does the Bible say that “the earth itself…will perish” (Ps 102:25-26, Heb 1:10-11), and why does Jesus himself say that “Heaven and EARTH will PASS AWAY…” (Mt 24:35, Mk 13:31, Lk 21:33)? Conversely, in Eccl 1:4, Solomon says, “A generation is going and a generation is coming; but the earth is standing even to time indefinite.” But didn’t Solomon write this scripture at a time in his life when he had ceased to serve the Lord and therefore wrote only his own thoughts from a very humanistic point of view? In Eccl 1:2, he states, “Everything is vanity!” and in vs 8 he says, “All things are wearisome”. Since obviously not “everything” is vanity and not “all things” are wearisome to a true Christian, doesn’t this show that Solomon was speaking for himself and doesn’t this whole passage just show the futility of man without God?

The untaught assume that every reference to "earth" is literal. Thinking people, though, grasp that the Bible uses various kinds  of symbolism and hyperbole.

In context, down in the 15^th verse of the 51^st chapter of Isaiah, it is apparent that Jehovah is speaking in terms of a symbolic heavens and earth. The verse reads: "But I, Jehovah, am your God, the One stirring up the sea that its waves may be boisterous. Jehovah of armies is his name. And I shall put my words in your mouth, and with the shadow of my hand I shall certainly cover you, in order to plant the heavens and lay the foundation of the earth and say to Zion, 'You are my people.'

According to the 15^th verse, the new heavens and new earth are actually the people that God blesses. The verse is describing in symbolic terms how Jehovah is going to reclaim his people from their downtrodden condition and restore them to his favor. If the new heavens and new earth are people, it stands to reason that the old heavens and earth that expire represent the old system of government and society.

As for Solomon's supposedly writing Ecclesiastes after he became an apostate, that directly contradicts the apostle Paul's inspired statement that "all Scripture is inspired of God." Solomon was speaking of the futility of strictly human endeavors. In contrast to vainly striving after the wind, Solomon concluded his book by saying that the whole obligation of man was to fear God.

23. The NWT translates the Greek word “Theos” in John 1:1c as “a god”… (deleted for brevity)

If “Theon” was translated as “God” in Jn 10:33, how would this verse read and what would it say about the nature of Christ? What did Jesus say in this passage that made the Jews want to kill him? See Jn 10:30-31. The phrase “Son of God” in theological language is a Semitic term which means “having the same nature as God”, or being God, just as the term “Son of man” means “having the same nature as a man”, or being a man. Since blasphemy is one of the few offenses in Jewish law for which a person may be stoned to death, wouldn’t this claim of Christ, that he is the Son of God, qualify as a blasphemous statement to the Jews, and wasn’t this the reason they wanted to kill him by stoning him to death (Jn 10:31, 36-39)?

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

As for John 10:33, it is notable that Trinitarians are disposed to reference the Pharisees and the Christ-hating Jews, as if they spoke the truth. Jesus had already told them in the 8^th chapter that they did not know him or his Father who sent him, but that they were liars and sons of the Devil. The truth is the Jews were lying when they said that Jesus made himself God. He didn't. In context, in the 29^th verse Jesus merely said: "What my Father has given me is greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. I and the Father are one."

While Trinitarians are quick to assume that expressions such as "I and the Father are one," is the same thing as saying 'I am God,' the Scriptures indicate otherwise. In the 17^th chapter of John, for example, Jesus acknowledged his oneness with God and asked his Father's blessing upon his disciples that they may be one with them. Certainly no reasonable person would conclude that Jesus was saying that all Christians are God or part of some kind of multiple Godhead.

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

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

24. …Jehovah's Witnesses--Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, reference is made to The Finished Mystery, which was the 7th of the Studies in the Scriptures series published by the WTS in 1917 (pg 66, 719), and was the major publication of the WTS at that time. On pgs. 88, 648, and 651, a picture of this book appears, complete with the winged disk symbol of the Egyptian sun god Ra on its front cover... (Segment cropped for brevity) … Do you really think that Jesus would have chosen an organization which taught so many things that were not correct according to "current" WTS teachings and are no longer taught as "the Truth"? Since God does not tell lies or change his mind (Num 23:19, Ps 89:34, Heb 6:18), and it is clear that the WTS could not have possibly been speaking for God when they taught these things, at least according to current WTS teachings, how do you know that the WTS is speaking for God now?

Jesus' original apostles and disciples had all sorts of misconceptions that were not cleared up until after Jesus was resurrected. That's why at Luke 24:25, Christ said to them: "O senseless ones and slow in heart to believe on all the things the prophets spoke!" Yet, even though Christ described his beloved apostles as senseless and slow to believe God's word, he previously entrusted them with the responsibility to represent him as they went through the land declaring that the kingdom of God had drawn near. That is extraordinary when we consider that at that time the apostles were sent forth they did not even know that the kingdom was going to be in heaven.

Jehovah's Witnesses are in the same position relative to Christ's arrival, as were the apostles before Christ death and resurrection. Malachi 3:1-2 foretells that the arrival of God's Messianic messenger will result in a refining and cleansing of God's servants. It reads: "Look! I am sending my messenger, and he must clear up a way before me. And suddenly there will come to His temple the true Lord, whom you people are seeking, and the messenger of the covenant in whom you are delighting. Look! He will certainly come," Jehovah of armies has said. But who will be putting up with the day of his coming, and who will be the one standing when he appears? For he will be like the fire of a refiner and like the lye of laundrymen."

If there is a final accounting and cleansing for the true people of God, as the Scriptures say, then it stands to reason that there are unclean teachings and attitudes that need to be purged. Therefore the errors of Jehovah's Witnesses, past and present, do not of themselves disqualify us from representing God's kingdom, as the apostles were not disqualified in their unenlightened state. The qualifying factor is our willingness to allow ourselves to be disciplined and taught by Christ.

25. Isa 42:8 says, “I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my OWN GLORY…” Similarly, Isa 48:11 says, “… And to no one else shall I give my OWN GLORY.” If Christ is not God, then how could he say in Jn 17:5, “So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the GLORY that I HAD ALONGSIDE YOU before the world was”? Since God stated that no one else would have the glory that alone belonged to God, how could Christ have the same “glory” as God unless Christ is God in the flesh?

26. Phil 2:6-8 says that Christ was “existing in GOD’S FORM” before he became a man, and willingly “emptied (lowered) HIMSELF” to become a man and “humbled HIMSELF” in order to make himself subject to the Father. Scripture also says that Christ was born under the law (Gal 4:4), in order to do, not his own will, but the will of the Father (Jn 5:30, 6:37). Doesn’t this mean that before Christ lowered “himself”, he would not have been subject to the Father and therefore equal to the Father in authority and glory? See also Jn 17:5

27. The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" ( ) as "I am" every time it appears in the New Testament (eg, Jn 6:35, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been". If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible what is the reason for the inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was translated in Jn 8:58 the same way it is translated in every other verse in which it appears, how would Jn 8:58 read and what would this verse say about the nature of Christ? See Exo 3:14 in every version of the Bible except the NWT. Why is this phrase, “ego eimi” translated as “I am” in the KIT, but “I have been” in the NWT? Since “I am” is present tense, and “I have been” is past tense, which tense is correct? If the “translators” of the NWT were Greek scholars, shouldn’t they have known which tense “ego eimi” is?

If "ego eimi" were translated at John 8:54 in the NWT to read as a title, "I Am," like most translations render it, then, it too would be guilty of rendering a grammatically tortured and nonsensical passage. The question Jehovah's Witnesses pose is: Why have other translations been inconsistent in translating "ego eimi"? For instance, one of the proof texts you cited reads in the NIV: "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."

In that verse "ego eimi" is translated to read as a mere pronoun and verb. What justification is there, then, for the translator to render that very same phrase as if it were a title synonymous with the name of Jehovah, as they have done at John 8:58? Answer: There is no justification, only apparent bias towards promotion of the unscriptural Trinity doctrine.

If Jesus intended to take the title of "I Am," he would have said something like, 'Before Abraham lived, I was the I Am.' As it stands, converting the "am" into a proper noun leaves the sentence without any sort of modifying verb for the pronoun. That is why John 8:58 in most translations is mere gibberish, unless you imagine that Jesus suddenly started speaking in some sort of Ebonics. If the concocted title of "I Am" at John 8:58 is simply another name of God, then we ought to be able to substitute the word God or Jehovah and get the same sense. So, read the verse in question substituting "I Am" with God and what do you get? The NIV would read: "Before Abraham was born, God."

You don't have to be a Greek scholar to appreciate that the translation of ego eimi as "I Am" is a hackneyed and clumsy attempt by Trinitarians to prop up a limp doctrine that cannot stand up on its own. The truth is that the expression in question can denote a past action, and according to the context Jesus was asked about his past. The NWT is not the only translation to realize this. The New Living Translation (NLT) nicely phrases it, saying: The people said, "You aren't even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?" Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!"

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

28. Almost every time the Greek word “ginosko” (Strong’s # 1097) is used in the New Testament, the NWT translates it as “know” or “known” (eg, 1Cor 8:3, Gal 4:9, Jn 10:14, Jn 10:27, etc). However, in Jn 17:3, this same Greek word is rendered as “taking in knowledge of”. What is the reason for the inconsistency of the translation of this word in Jn 17:3 by the NWT? If the NWT were consistent and translated this word in Jn 17:3 the same way it is translated in the other verses in which it appears, how would this verse read? In addition, the Kingdom Interlinear translates this word as “they may be KNOWING” instead of “their taking in knowledge” as it is translated in the NWT. Why the inconsistency in translation between the KIT and the NWT? If this word was translated in this verse like it is translated in the other verses in which it appears, how would this verse read? How could a person come to “know” Jesus Christ unless they have a relationship with him? How could a person have a relationship with Christ unless they communicate with Jesus through prayer?

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

29. If the soul is the body, why does Jesus make a distinction between the body and the soul in Mt 10:28? Similarly, if the soul is the body, why does Paul make a distinction between the “spirit and soul and body of you” in 1Thess 5:23? In addition, the NWT renders 2Tim 4:22 as, “The Lord [be] with the spirit you [show]…”even though the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT) translates the Greek phrase “soul pneuma” as “the spirit of you”. Why is there a difference between the KIT and the NWT rendition of this verse? Why does the NWT add the word “[show]” when it does not appear in the Greek? Wouldn’t the KIT version be a much simpler and straight forward rendition of this verse? If the KIT version is used, what does this verse say about the “spirit” of a person?

30. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible, why does it alter the word of God by adding the word “[Son]” in Acts 20:28 when this word does not exist in the Greek? See Gr-Engl Interlinear.

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

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

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

The Kingdom Interlinear transliterates the verse in question to say that God purchased the congregation "through the blood of the own (one)." That is not to say God's own blood, but the blood of one who belonged to God—namely his Son's blood. The NWT is fully justified in making that clear.