Why Jehova´s Witnessess don´t accept that their Biblies are changed?

Question

Example Jonh 1:1
The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses says: "…and the Word was a god," contrary to all other translations I have ever seen. Their officials say that this translation is justified because in the original Greek the word "God" is without the article. It is without the article, but it is clear that this is not their real reason, because verses 6, 12, and 13, of the same first chapter of John contain similar usages of the word "God," all without the article. The Witnesses have translated all of these correctly with a capital "G" and without inserting "a". The only instances I have found in which they translate "God" with a small "g" are when "God" refers to Christ. It is certainly not done consistently whenever the Greek word "God" lacks the article. (See the examples in John 3:21, 8:54, 9:16, 9:33). In the case of John 1:1-3, to avoid a translation that correctly identifies Christ as God, the New World Translation ends up attributing the creation of all things to "a god!" www.chick.com/reading/books/135/135_06.asp

Does "a god" Equal "Jehovah?"

I have found one contradiction to the claim that the lack of the article before "God" in the Greek requires the translation "a god" in English that I find particularly striking. The New World translates the very same word for "God," without an article: "…they will all be taught by Jehovah" (John 6:45). Why didn't they follow what they say is their rule and translate it, "They will all be taught by a god?" Because John 6:45 quotes the Old Testament where the Hebrew word used for God is "Jehovah" (Isa. 54:13)!

Why Jehova`s witness put jehova in the new testament, if in the greek scriptures, doesn`t appers this word. read Rev:22:18
(my english is not good, excuse me)

Answer 1

Jehovah's Witnesses use a wide range of bible translations in hundreds of different languages. Surely this questioner does not suggest that some conspiracy has "changed" these dozens of different bible translations...?

But this so-called "question" dishonestly implies that Jehovah's Witnesses use only "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures". It is true that of all the translations they distribute, this translation enjoys the widest distribution. There are more than 130 million copies of this modern-language "NWT" bible in print, in dozens of languages.
http://watchtower.org/languages.htm

The entire text of NWT is freely available at the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses, and a personal printed copy can be requested at no charge:
http://watchtower.org/bible/
https://watch002.securesites.net/contact/submit.htm
http://watchtower.org/how_to_contact_us.htm


Jehovah's Witnesses certainly like NWT, but they are happy to use any translation which an interested person may prefer, and in fact Jehovah's Witnesses themselves distribute other translations besides NWT. Jehovah's Witnesses attach no particular infallibility or inspiration to NWT.

Since the same manuscripts used by the NWT translators are still widely available for study, and since there are dozens of alternate translations for comparison, anyone who chooses to use NWT does so informedly.

It seems that the vast majority of the criticism against the New World Translation is actually as a proxy for blind hatred against Jehovah's Witnesses. The hatred must be "blind" since secular experts of biblical Hebrew and Greek have consistently refused to condemn any particular verse or phrase as an unacceptable translation. Instead, it is religionists with preconceived theologies who bigotedly insist upon particular wordings, since these are necessary to prop up the shakey tenets of their false worship.

(2 Timothy 4:3-5) For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories. You, though, keep your senses in all things, suffer evil, do the work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.

It seems signficant that the relatively small religion of Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones best known for their worldwide preaching work. Yet Jesus commanded that ALL who would call themselves "Christian" perform this public work:

(Matthew 28:19,20) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And, look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/library/pr/article_04.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/na/
http://watchtower.org/e/20020915/article_01.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050715/article_02.htm


Essentially, Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that the entire bible (including John 1:1) tends to prove that Jesus the Son is a distinct person from Jehovah the Father. The term "God" can be applied to Jesus as easily as it can be applied to Jehovah, Satan, or a human judge. (Some emphasis added below.)

(John 1:1-18) The Word was WITH God... 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten SON from a father...18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten GOD [Jesus] who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him.

(Isaiah 9:6) For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God

(2 Corinthians 4:4) The god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers

(1 Corinthians 8:5-6) 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,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father


Here are other Scriptures of interest to nontrinitarians such as Jehovah's Witnesses:

(Colossians 1:15) the firstborn of all creation

(Mark 10:18) Jesus said to him: 'Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.

(Revelation 3:14) the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God

(Philippians 2:5-6) Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God

(John 8:42) Neither have I come of my own initiative at all, but that One sent me forth

(John 12:49) I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak

(John 14:28) I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am

(1 Corinthians 15:28) But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him

(Matthew 20:23) this sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father

(1 Corinthians 11:3) I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; ...in turn the head of the Christ is God

(John 20:17) I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.

(Deuteronomy 6:4) Jehovah our God is one Jehovah

(1 Corinthians 8:4-6) 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

Thanks again for an opportunity to share what the bible actually says about the distinct persons of Jesus Christ the Son and Jehovah God the Father!

Learn more!
http://watchtower.org/e/ti/
http://watchtower.org/e/20050422/
http://watchtower.org/e/20020515/
http://watchtower.org/e/pr/article_04.htm

Answer 2

Good effort, I suppose. If you look at John 1: 1 in it's entirety, you will notice that it is speaking of 2 distinct individuals. In the beginning of the verse, both "Word" and "God" have the definite article -- "the", signifying that 2 people are being spoken of, THE Word and THE God.

However, when speaking of the Word himself, it doesn't use the definite article with the word God, why the change in grammar? --- Because the term "god" is being used to DESCRIBE "Word". If he was still speaking of the same person, there would be no change. If you know anything about Koine Greek, you would realize that when no definite article is used, it is speaking of qualities or character of the noun (the Word). The example verses you gave to try and point out inconsistencies in the New World Translation are not descriptive, the use of God in those verses IS the noun, not describing a noun.

Translation is not transliteration --- the bible was not written in English, so when translated in English, not just the words have to be translated, but the thoughts must be conveyed.

Believe it or not, John 1:1 is accurately translated by Jehovah's Witnesses. The greek grammar employed in the New World Translation there is appropriate, but the KJV, for example, uses it appropriately in other instances, why not here?

For example --- in John 8:44, Jesus tells the religious leaders that they are from their father "the devil", obviously speaking of Satan. However, in John 6:70, speaking about Judas says he is "a devil". Judas was not Satan or Satan in the flesh, in fact, the bible does speak of Satan entering into Judas. Whether that is literal or figurative (as in enter into his heart), it still shows that they are 2 distinct people.

If you get any Greek Interlinear bible, you will clearly see that the word used to describe both individuals is "devil". When describing Satan, the Greek uses a definite article (such as "the") but not when describing Judas, there is no indefinite article (a, an, etc.) because Greek did not have one. Judas was not Satan, but he was a devil (which means slanderer). Here, "devil" is being used to descibe the noun (Judas), just as "god" was describing the Word. He was godlike, had godlike qualities, power, etc. --- but he was not THE God, just as Judas was a slanderer like Satan, but he was not THE devil.

In this instance, the KJV is correct in separating the 2 individuals --- Satan as the devil, Judas as a devil. If it employed the same principle in John 1:1, you would read "a god" when refering to Jesus.

Besides --- Satan is call "god" of this system, is he THE God? Also, in John 10:34, Jesus quotes from Psalms 82:6 that the religious leaders (men) were called "gods", by God, were they all part of THE God? Obviously the answer is NO, the term "god" can be used in different context depending on whether it speaks as a noun or as an adjective.

EDIT:

As for your added comments, the scripture you question (John 6:45) here again, the term "God" in the Greek is the noun. Also, this scripture is a quote from Isaiah 54:13, where the divine name was used. Although the term "God" was written in the Greek, clearly when speaking it they would have used the divine name, otherwise they would not have said --- "It is written".

This is where translation, not transliteration comes into play. An argument could be made for not using "Jehovah" if translating just the words, but since the New World Translation conveys the thoughts of the writer, it is not a stretch to use "Jehovah" when they are quoting from the Hebrew text that uses the divine name.

You also bring up Rev 22:18, what about verse 19 --- "whoever takes away ..." What does that say about the writers of the King James and countless others who have removed the divine name for LORD or GOD over 7,000, yes, seven thousand times in the Hebrew scriptures. Adding the name "Jehovah" in the Greek where they are quoting from the Hebrew is not out of line and adds to the meaning of what was intended, compared to removing the divine name --- that takes away from the meaning, preventing people from getting a personal relationship with God by learning his name and what it means. Your name would be the 1st thing someone would want to know if they wanted to get to know you better.

Who do you think has done more of a dis-service?

Answer 3

I'm sure they realize that it's different, but they feel it is different in a good way. They feel they changed it for the better and in some cases, they may be right

Here is an interesting fact about the Watchtower translation of John 1:1. You may not be aware of it.

In 1956 the WT published an article “Triumphing over Wicked Spirit Forces.”

In this article they discussed a translation made by a former Catholic priest, Johannes Greber, who had become a spiritualist. In true WT fashion, the article concluded that Mr. Greber’s translation had been made with assistance of wicked spirits. (2/15/56, p. 111)

Fast forward to Sept 15, 1962 Watchtower. (Page 553, para 4,5) In this issue we read that the WT translation of John 1:1 is supported by several Greek scholars, including a former Roman Catholic priest. No mention is made of the fact that years earlier the WT published an article exposing this former priest as a spiritualist who had “help” from the demons in translating difficult passages. (I'm not saying the translation was demonized, I'm just referring to what they said in 1956.)

We can only imagine how the trusting WT readers must have admired this scholarly translator. Perhaps they should have followed the more recent advice given in an Awake article about propaganda, namely: If authorities are cited, check them out. Are they really reliable?

Just thought you might find that interesting, if you didn’t know it already.

Answer 4

The New Word Translation doesn't say all things were created by a god.

It is says that

"All things were created 'through' Jesus."

The Greek word the KJV bible uses at

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Means "Channel" and not originator.

1223. dia dee-ah' a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through

So in the KJV the use of the word 'by' is the same as

'The letter came by messager.'

This doesn't mean the messanger wrote the letter, he just delivered it.

Is this understanding in harmony with the rest of the bible?

Yes,

Prov 8:30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31 being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.

As Jehovah's master worker, all things came through him.

Also:

In his book "Jesus as God, The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus"(Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992) Murray J. Harris, after a fairly extensive analysis and classification of the NT use of THEOS, concludes, in regard with the use/nonuse of the Greek definite article:

"Thus it is evident that the use or nonuse of the article with [THEOS] does not usually, but on occaision may, give the term a special connotation. If within a single sentence (e.g., John 1:1), an author uses both [THEOS] and [HO THEOS], it would seem a priori likely that he intends a distinction to be drawn that will be apparent from the context."-"Introduction: Theos in the New Testament ; 3.The Relation between [HO THEOS] and [THEOS], c.Occaisionally Distinguishable,"-p.40

"In the sentence "and the word was a god" the copulative verb "was" and the expression "a god" form the predicate of the sentence. In the original Greek there is no definite article ho (the) before 'theos' (god), and it is presumptous to say that such a definite article is to be understood so that the sentence should therefore be translated "and the Word was God." That would mean that the Word was the God with whom the Word was said to be. This is unreasonable; for how can the Word be with the God and at the same time be that God?"- p.774.

"In the light of the fact that in the preceding clause John has written [pros ton theon["with the God"], it would seem fair to assume that the anarthrous state of [theos] in 1:1c is not without significance. It would be improper to question this assumption by arguing that since no distinction can be drawn between [theos] and [ho theos] in the usage of the Fourth Gospel..., John might equally well have written [ho logos en pros ho theon, kai ho theos en ho logos]. All that Johannine usage shows is that there is no necessary distinction between [theos] and [ho theos], both terms generally referring to the Father. But an actual differentiation between the terms cannot be excluded at any point, especially here where an articular use and an anarthrous use of [theos] occur in succession, the first [theos] clearly referring to the Father...and the second being predicated of the Logos."-p.60.

Answer 5

All what other translations. Have you read every other translation? The same words are used in many Bibles, none of which created by the witnesses.

As for changes, the King James was changed four times, over a 150 year time period, by many different individuals, before it met the requirements of the Church of England and became the Authorized Version. Which do you use, the final Authorized one, or one of the earlier Unauthorized versions?

Answer 6

John 10:34-36;
Jesus said, I called them gods to whom the word of God came.

Heb.4:12 The word of God is powerful. It is worth learning from any translation, like the four gospels, most say the same thing just a bit different.

REALITY CHECK

KJV Bible 1611 after Christ published at 303 years in 1914 after Christ is an excepted translation for the end time days by law of man and God.
Dan.8:12-14 has got to mean that 2300 years after Babylon captivity that the word would be in circulation in the world, 2300 at 300 years is 2600 after Babylon, and there is not going to be another king until King Jesus. Also 2520 after Babylon Empire #3, is to end Empire #7, with the word in the world and Rev.12:1-12; Satan has a short time.
Michael of Jude 9; at Dan.12:1-13 end times, at Dan.12:1-7 [ 2500 after Babylon is to stand against Satan and the unholy angels, it is time for heaven to be cleansed ]; the whole book is about this.
We are 2613 years after Babylon, has any prophecy come true?
1620 people came on to soil never organized before from Eden. It had to be organized to be apart of WW1. NOW THE WHOLE WORLD IN END TIMES IS INVOLVED.

HOW OLD IS THE WORD OF GOD?

Answer 7

All these are but translation.

Just compare it to other translation, says, KJV, NIV, RSV, NASV, even to NEV, CEV etc, you will notice that all have a bit of difference, but the position of Jesus as the Divine God is omited in the NWT.

So, which is true? Just compare to the Greek version, and those Death Sea Scroll, and the NWT will not hold water.

Theirs is the worst translation pertaining to the issue on Jesus.

Answer 8

Jehovah's Witnesses use the King James Version of the Bible.

Answer 9

They are quite aware that they have changed it. That's why they printed their own.

Of course, they believe that their modifications bring it closer to the original texts.

My own research has led me to believe that their NWT is fairly accurate on many accounts. As to their choice to use the word "Jehovah"... if they were going to correct the bible, at least they could have corrected it properly! God's biblical name is DEFINATELY NOT Jehovah.

Answer 10

You will not get the answer not at least you have to communicate to solve your problem....and JW are very much willing to assists you about your questions....