Is tampering with the Bible acceptable if its used in the name of love?

Question

For example the JWs did this...

Under the leadership of Nathan H. Knorr (1905-1977) the WT Society put away date setting for a time and switched to a different strategy. Since many of their teachings could be refuted by key verses in the King James Bible, Knorr set out to publish a different Bible for JWs to use. Called the New World Translation (NWT), it blatantly altered many verses to support Watchtower doctrine. The single best example of this is John 1: 1, which in the King James Version clearly declares Jesus' deity-"the Word was God." JWs deny the deity of Christ, so the NWT renders this phrase "the Word was a god." The translation committee responsible for the NWT was kept anonymous, undoubtedly to cover up their complete lack of scholarly qualifications. None of the men who worked on this project had any formal training in the biblical languages, except for Frederick Franz.

He was chairman of the committee and had studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati without graduating, and was only self-taught in Hebrew. After Knorr's death, Franz became the Watchtower Society's new President.

Answer 1

It's a story book and the copyright has expired so anybody can do anything with it. Don't like it? Too bad. And I think that kid put the bible to good use.

Answer 2

The New World Translation (NWT), the JWs’ own Bible version, was created between 1950-61 in several parts, beginning with New Testament (NT). The translation was made by an "anonymous" committee, which transliterated and altered passages that were problematic for earlier JWs. Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel were later identified as the men that created the text, which is used by no other sect. Franz studied non-biblical Greek for two years, and taught himself Hebrew. The rest had no formal training in any biblical language. The text of the NWT is more of a transliteration to fit theological presumptions than it is a true translation. This can be seen in key verses that the WTS changed in order to fit its doctrines.

To undermine the divinity of Christ in John 1:1, the NWT reads, " . . . the word was a god." Non-JW Greek scholars call this "a shocking mistranslation," "incorrect," "monstrous," and "evidence of abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar." Furthermore, Col. 1:15-17 has been changed to "... by means of him all [other] things were created." If the text were left as the original Greek reads, it would clearly state that Jesus created all things. However, the WTS cannot afford to say that anyone but Jehovah created all things, so it inserted the word "other" four times into the text.

The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT said that Jesus was to be worshipped (Heb. 1:6), but the WTS changed the NWT so that later editions would support its doctrines. The translators now decided to render the Greek word for "worship" (proskuneo) as "do obeisance" every time it is applied to Jesus, but as "worship" when modifying Jehovah. If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6.

At the time of the Last Supper, there were over three dozen Aramaic words to say "this means," "represents," or "signifies," but Jesus used none of them in his statement, "This is my body." Since the WTS denies the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, they have taken the liberty to change our Lord’s words to "This means my body" in Matthew 26:26.

The NWT also translates the Greek word kurios ("Lord") as "Jehovah" dozens of times in the NT, despite the fact that the word "Jehovah" is never used by any NT author. It should also be asked why the NWT does not translate kurios as "Jehovah" in Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Philippians 2:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, and Revelation 22:21. If it did translate kyrios consistently, then Jesus would be Jehovah!

Answer 3

You can change any religious text any way you want to support any doctrine you want to support. My contention would be, if you are going to do so, then don't try to claim the original publication as your doctrine's authority.

I would also wonder if the tampering is "used in the name of love". (the following is based on the assumption that the bible is divine words) If you can always change the actual divine text to support what you doctrine you want (not just interpret it differently) then is it still divine, or has it become of a man. If a religion is going to claim a text is divine but is changed at the leadership's change in doctrine, it would seem the text would become meaningless. All that would matter was the current leader's desired doctrine.

Many Christians believe that to deny the deity of Christ is blasphemy and so what the JW's did would be serious indeed. Based on John 1:1-34.

The JW's have been known for constantly changing "absolutes" in their belief to support the current leadership’s agenda. They began their branch of doctrine based on a specific date of the return of Christ. That date passed and the JW's had to revise that date. Many former JW's believe that this changing of dates is a tactic used to keep believers always in fear that if they do not do what they are told they will miss out of being saved on ______ (Fill in the current leaderships date) and be left behind.

Answer 4

If there are arguments to be made against a particular passage, surely those arguments can stand on their own merits without resorting to personal insults against those whom the accuser guesses may have been involved in the translation.

In fact, the "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" is well-respected by secular Hebrew and Greek linguists. It is only anti-Witness religionists with theological preconceptions that are troubled by the academically-acceptable translation. For example, the verse mentioned in the question is translated by at least twenty significant translations in a manner entirely consistent with the New World Translation.

The entire text of this translation is available online:
http://watchtower.org/bible/

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/library/vcpf/index.htm
http://watchtower.org/library/vcpf/article_02.htm
http://watchtower.org/library/w/2001/7/1/article_01.htm

Answer 5

It is very wrong to tamper with the Word of God. It is not love to do so.

It is not love to do something that would cause either you or someone else to suffer some kind of harm. As Christians we are commanded by Jesus to show love for one another. (John 15:17) Not to show love is unacceptable for a Christian.

To alter the Word of God is to bring God's judgment on a person (you and/or someone else) in this life and in eternity.

This is why I say this:

1) Revelation 22:18-19 says that if you hear (understand and know to be true) the prophecy written in this book (Revelation) and you add to it or take away from it then you will experience the wrath of God in this life and eternal damnation when you die.

2) In Deu 4:2 and Deu 12:32 God told the Jews not to add to or take away from His word so that they will observe all that He has commanded them to do. If they did not do all that He commanded them then God brought curses into their life. (Deu 28:15-68) The same principles apply to us today because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Heb 13:8)

3) Prov 30:6 says that God will reprove you and you will be found a liar if you add to His Word. Being reprimanded by God and having Him show you to be a liar is an unpleasant experience.

In Conclusion:

Don't mess with the Word of God or God will mess with you.

God makes it very plain that you are to leave His Word alone or you will face His judgment in this life and eternal judgment (damnation) in eternity.

To bring God's judgment upon yourself or someone else because you altered the Word of God is not love.

It is not acceptable for a Christian not to love people because Jesus commanded Christians to love one another.

Answer 6

Many well-meaning Christians argue that the United States was founded by Christian men on Christian principles. Although well-intentioned, such sentiment is unfounded. The men who lead the United States in its revolution against England, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and put together the Constitution were not Christians by any stretch of the imagination.

Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the gospels; he was uncomfortable with any reference to miracles, so with two copies of the New Testament, he cut and pasted them together, excising all references to miracles, from turning water to wine, to the resurrection.

There has certainly never been a shortage of boldness in the history of biblical scholarship during the past two centuries, but for sheer audacity Thomas Jefferson's two redactions of the Gospels stand out even in that company. It is still a bit overwhelming to contemplate the sangfroid exhibited by the third president of the United States as, razor in hand, he sat editing the Gospels during February 1804, on (as he himself says) "2. or 3. nights only at Washington, after getting thro' the evening task of reading the letters and papers of the day." He was apparently quite sure that he could tell what was genuine and what was not in the transmitted text of the New Testament......(Thomas Jefferson. The Jefferson Bible; Jefferson and his Contemporaries, an afterward by Jaroslav Pelikan, Boston: Beacon Press, 1989)

In his Notes on Virginia, Jefferson wrote:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. (Dumas Malon, Jefferson The President: First Term 1801-1805. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191)

Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestoes encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the War of Independence. But he was a Deist:

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. (Richard Emery Roberts, ed. "Excerpts from The Age of Reason". Selected Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: Everbody's Vacation Publishing Co., 1945, p. 362)

Regarding the New Testament, he wrote that:

I hold [it] to be fabulous and have shown [it] to be false...(Roberts, p. 375)

About the afterlife, he wrote:

I do not believe because a man and a woman make a child that it imposes on the Creator the unavoidable obligation of keeping the being so made in eternal existance hereafter. It is in His power to do so, or not to do so, and it is not in my power to decide which He will do. (Roberts, p. 375)

John Adams, the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and became a Unitarian. It was during Adams' presidency that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI that:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072).

Answer 7

Oh come on, who cares? It's just a book, however you tamper with it and mistranslate it.

You could tamper the Bible so that every other sentence read 'edsawyer is the real God' and I still wouldn't believe it.

Answer 8

its prolly not a good idea to tamper with the bible! I once knew a kid who would rip out revalations and smoke joints out of them! Not a great idea!