For Jehovah's Witnesses, regarding Numbers 21:5 - 6 & 1 Corinthians 10:9...?

Question

Numbers 21:5 - 6 details how Jehovah was tested by the Israelites grumbling and how He subsequently sent serpents among them as chastisement.

1 Corinthians 10:9 also relates to this same incident. However, citing the example of God's discipline of the Israelites, (in the original Greek) the apostle Paul writes that the believer's should not "mede ekpeirazo CHRISTOS" (caps for emphasis) . That is, they should not test CHRIST (as the Israelites tested Him in the desert).

How does the Watchtower justify rendering "Christos" as Jehovah in the New World Translation ?

Thanks in advance for all answers.

In regard to Jason BeDuhn's "Truth in Translation" -

Admittedly, the author is favourable in his comments on the New World Translation. However, it is important to note that in reference to the Watchtower's (mis)translation of "kurious" as "Jehovah" in the Greek NT, he writes,

"Having concluded that the NWT is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available, I would be remiss if I did not mention one peculiarity of this translation that by most conventions of translation would be considered an inaccuracy, however little this inaccuracy changes the meaning of most of the verses where it appears. I am referring to the use of "Jehovah" in the NWT New Testament. "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh" or some other reconstruction of the divine name consisting of the four consonants YHWH) is the personal name of God used more than six thousand times in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament...

BUT THE NAME NEVER APPEARS IN ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT OF ANY BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. SO, TO INTRODUCE THE NAME "JEHOVAH" INTO THE NEW TESTAMENT AS THE NWT DOES TWO-HUNDRED-THIRTY-SEVEN TIMES, IS NOT ACCURATE TRANSLATION BY THE MOST BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ACCURACY: ADHERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT." (Page 169, caps for emphasis).

Regarding BeDuhn's comments on the accuracy of the NWT - as I am by no means a Greek scholar, I am in no position to argue with any scholarly authority against this perspective. However, there are apparently a number of suitably qualified men who would HOTLY dispute his assertion...

...the late Dr. Bruce Metzger, who referred to the NWT as "a frightful mistranslation", being one.

I personally would argue against BeDuhn's comment "..however little this inaccuracy changes the meaning of the verses where it appears." I believe that here, BeDuhn is in more theological territory, where he is far less equipped to comment with authority. How do I justify that statement ? Well, the Bible clearly states that the NATURAL man cannot receive the things of God, they are foolishness to him and that they are SPIRITUALLY discerned (1 Corinthians 2:12 -14). To my knowledge, BeDuhn does not profess faith in the biblical Christ to any degree. Therefore, as one who is patently UNSPIRITUAL, he is limited in regard to his understanding of God's word. He may well be able to speak with some authority on the LETTER of the Bible from the perspective of a textual scholar, but he is far less qualified to UNDERSTAND the word of God from a SPIRITUAL angle. Thus, how can he confidently..

..claim that the replacement of "kurious" in the NT with "Jehovah" is of little consequence in regard to understanding the Bible ?

Indeed, this same point could also be applied to Jehovah's Witnesses in general, who, by their own admission, are not "born again", a spiritual conversion experience of inner transformation through faith in Christ & a PREREQUISITE for both perceiving and entering God's kingdom (John 3:3 - 8, also Titus 3:5 - 7).

Is it no surprise then, that - for the most part - religious, but unconverted, NATURAL JW thinking is in accord with a scholar who is not indwelt with the Spirit of God ? (Romans 8:8 - 11).

How interesting that JW's, so eager to quote and recommend BeDuhn's book, are not so eager to comment on his refutation of the Watchtower's replacement of "kurious" with "Jehovah". JW's, is BeDuhn an "authority" on other translation matters, but not on this...?

Phantom Rhymer -

With all due respect, since when has "Jeopardy" been an authority on Bible translation ?

If we are to take Mr. BeDuhn's comments regarding the replacement of "kurious" with "Jehovah" seriously, what about Romans 10:13, which the WT has rendered, "..everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" ?
If we correctly render "kurious" as Lord, and consider the CONTEXT of Paul's writing (see previous verses 8 - 12, particularly verse 9, "Jesus is Lord"), it becomes clear that the writer has REAPPLIED an OT text referring to Jehovah to the Lord (kurious) Jesus, thereby affirming His deity.

And BeDuhn claims that the insertion of Jehovah is a "little inaccuracy", please...

Terry -

I would dispute your comment that the context of 1 Cor. 10:9 is "..talking about Jehovah, not Christ".

Verse 4 - "...and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them, AND THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST."

Verse 16 - "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of CHRIST ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of CHRIST ?"

Verses 20 & 21 - "Rather, that which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons AND NOT TO GOD, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord (Jesus, Terry - right ?) and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's (Jesus') table and of the table of demons."

And finally, the whole point of the chapter, a warning against testing Christ, the Lord (Jehovah) -

"Or do we provoke the Lord (i.e. test Christ) to jealousy ? Are we stronger than He ?" (verse 22, all inserts mine)

Terry, further comment on your assertion that the context of 1 Corinthians chapter 10 concerns Jehovah rather than Christ, i.e. inferring that they are two distinct & separate "persons"...

The NWT rendering of 1 Cor. 10:21 - "YOU cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; YOU cannot be partaking of 'the table of Jehovah' and the table of demons."

In the following chapter 11, verses 20 - 26 of the NWT make it very clear that 'the table of Jehovah' referred to is actually the table of the LORD JESUS (verse 26, in particular).
The inconsistency of translation is very apparent here.

A. Heiss -

In regard to my alleged "shameless disingenuousness" - I am quoting from an ONLINE version of the NWT which does not - to my knowledge - supply alternate translations on verses. However, thank you for pointing out that the Watchtower Society do admit to "Christ" as being an alternative reading...

I also think that it is CRYSTAL clear that 1 Cor. 10:9 refers to a SPECIFIC incident in the OT, i.e. Numbers 21:5. What else could "..nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, AND WERE DESTROYED BY SERPENTS" refer to ? With all due respect A. Heiss, I think you're clutching at straws, here...

And, where in Hebrews 11:6 is the term "khristos" applied to Moses, please ? I can't see it, not even in the NWT...

Jacquie,

Thanks for your reply.

Although you don't appear to have addressed the question asked, nonetheless, I believe that a response is in order to one of your comments.

You wrote, "If something doesn't seem 100% right then it isn't (in a spiritual sense, i.e. the Trinity)".

Please don't feel that I'm attacking you, but I would first like to say that you have quoted my e - mail comments of 30 Sep 2006 rather selectively. I shall take this opportunity to quote what I wrote more fully -

"I admit that I am not ENTIRELY comfortable with the Trinity doctrine. However, I am even less comfortable with the Watchtower teaching concerning the person of Christ and the Holy Spirit."

So, applying your reasoning regarding something not seeming 100% right indicating that it isn't, then surely the WT teaching on the person of Christ & the Spirit qualifies an even stronger candidate for rejection by the sincere seeker of God ?

There is a wise saying...

..."Feelings can be great servants, but deadly masters."

This saying is true. We may feel that something makes sense, but does it ? On what basis should a professing Christian base their doctrinal position upon, their feelings, or the word of God ?

There are, I am sure, many Christians who are not ENTIRELY comfortable with the Trinity doctrine of one God in three DISTINCT, but not SEPARATE "persons" which admittedly, is NOT explicitly delineated in the Bible. However, I believe that the doctrine of Christ's deity IS (John 20:28 being only one example). Also, the personality (and deity) of the Holy Spirit of God is proved in scripture (Acts 13:2, Ephesians 4:30). Therefore, what are we left with ? Three separate Gods ?

The Lord Jesus (the First and the Last, Revelation 1:17, cf. Isaiah 44:6) when speaking of the Holy Spirit, said that He would send "ANOTHER helper" (John 14:16)...

...the Greek word translated "another" is "allos". Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, "Allos expresses a NUMERICAL difference and denotes 'ANOTHER OF THE SAME SORT'; heteros expresses a QUALITATIVE difference and denotes 'another of a different sort'"

Therefore, how can the Holy Spirit be an impersonal, "active force" if He is of "the same sort" as the Lord Jesus ?

If - as we Christians believe the Bible teaches - Jesus is God, then what does that make the Holy Spirit ?

The Trinity doctrine is mysterious, to be sure and perhaps that is a big contributing factor as to why I am not entirely comfortable with it. However, due in part to discussing such matters with JW's on YA, and going into deeper research of the scriptures, I am far MORE comfortable with the teaching now than I was back in 2006 when I wrote you my e mail.

Jacquie, the Bible says believers are to "make sure of all things" (1 Thess. 5:21) & to...

.."put up a HARD fight for the faith" (Jude 3, emphasis mine). I guess that in asking questions of JW's as I do, I am attempting to be obedient to both commands. If you want to interpret that as "kicking against the goads", you are free to do so. But in truth, Jacquie, I quit kicking against the goads eight years ago, when I turned from my sin and received God's FREE GIFT of forgiveness, reconciliation & eternal life through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21-24, Ephesians 2:8-10).

May God be gracious to you.

Answer 1

I have the same Westcott and Hort Greek text as is used for the NWT, and in the Greek column it has Kyrios / Lord. That is why the various translations cited by JWs in support say 'Lord' and not 'Christ'. However, the glaring problem not faced up to is the audacity of the NWT committee (they were not translators) in rendering this Kyrios as Jehovah! No bias?

It appears that they WILL NOT have their NWT infer that the Jehovah of the OT is the Jesus of the NT. Is it not obvious that the brazen / fiery serpent Jehovah commanded to be made, so that all who looked at it would not die, is a symbol of Christ? (Num 21:8-9) All who look to Christ will be saved. (John 3:14-15) Yet Jehovah says, "Look to me, all ye ends of the earth, and be saved, for I am God, and there is none other" (Isa 45:22). Isn't it obvious? To look to Christ for salvation is to look to Jehovah! And Christ cannot be another God, for there is only one God! But the JWs will not have it. They refuse to gaze only on Christ for salvation. They look to their organization, imagining that this is equivalent to looking to Jehovah. How close is that to blasphemy?

Answer 2

The premise of this question is incorrect on at least three basis.

First, exposing the shameless disingenuousness of the questioner, NWT includes "Christ" right there on the same page as an alternate translation.

Second, many or most ancient manuscripts do NOT use the term "Χριστός" (or "khristos") but instead use the term "κύριος" or "kyrion" at 1 Corinthians 10:9. The NWT actually lists the manuscripts which use each term in that same footnote on that same page, so the reader can decide which he believes to be more authoritative.

Thirdly, there seems no reason to insist that 1 Cor 10:9 is referring specifically and only to the incident of Num 21:5. Instead, it seems quite reasonable to note that it partially quotes from a different verse in Deuteronomy.
(Deuteronomy 6:16) You must not put Jehovah your God to the test, the way you put him to the test at Massah

Fourth, even if 1 Cor 10:9 must read "Christ" instead of "Jehovah", what does that mean? The term "khristos" is applied in the bible to Moses (see Heb 11:6), and the Israelites certainly vexed Moses. Even regarding Jesus, it cannot be denied that those ancient Jews did put the pre-human Jesus to the test also. The bible teaches that Jesus is the most important Agent of Jehovah (see Acts 3:15; Heb 2:10; etc), and thus Jesus was likely the superhuman entity who interacted most directly with the ancient Israelites (see John 8:23,39,40).


Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/bible

Answer 3

I have just checked my Westcott and Hort Greek text, and it differs from yours in the crucial word. CHRISTOS is NOT there! TON KYRION (the lord) is there.
So Greek texts seem to differ on this crucial point.
Here's how various translations treat the crucial word.
King James....Christ
New International..the Lord
Living Bible..the Lord's patience
Revised Standard...the Lord
Moffats...the Lord
Jerusalem Bible..the Lord
New English Bible...the Lord

Please don't assume that all the other translations and greek texts that differ are necessarily "out of step".

I just read a book called Truth in translation comparing 9 new testaments, and the New World Translation came out top of the lot for lack of bias! NOT written by a Jehovah's Witness. also on "Jeopardy" the contestants were recently asked which was the most accurate translation, and the correct nswer was given as "New World Translation" published by Jehovah's witnesses!
If you look in the appendix of the NWT it explains the use of "Jehovah", mostly when quotes are made by Christians from the old testament. Most translations these days acknowledge in small print in the preface that they substitute LORD in capitals for the divine name Jehovah in several thousand places. Hope this helps

Answer 4

Anna,

there are numerous sites that reference your misquotes as to the accuracy and truthfulness of Wescott and Hort. Please verify prior to posting.

example, They belonged to a "Ghostlie" Society, a scientific group to investigate, not participate, in supernatural events.

Anna all you have to do is "Google" or are you blinded in this matter also?

2 Cor 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. (NKJB)

Also see my comments to your last question.

Carl,

Thanks for the research. You've done more to help build my faith and prove the accuracy of the NWT than you know.

Why do different bibles and ancient manuscripts read,

LORD, Lord, God and Christ

at 1 Cor 10:9 is a more accurate question.

Just because Wescott and Hoyt is the primary master text used for the NWT it wasn't the only one.

One ancient manuscript had "LORD" at 1 Cor 10:9

See the Footnote in the Empatic Diaoglott,

The NASB has 1 Cor 10:9 Nor let us try the Lord,

The context of 1 Cor 10:9 is talking about Jehovah, not Christ.

It is easy to see how the original YHWH, went to LORD, to Lord, to Christ in later manuscripts.

I can make a strong case of a trinitarian scribe changing God's word here to fit his interpetations.

NIV, Good New Bible, Amplified Bible are existing examples of changing the Greek in many locations to fit a trinity point of view.

You really need to read the book - Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.

Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky′ri·os, “Lord” or The·os′, “God.”

Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: “Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God’s name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, הוהי (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate ? [abbreviation for Ky′ri·os, “Lord”]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ’ which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself.”

RESTORING THE DIVINE NAME

Throughout the centuries many translations of parts or of all the Christian Greek Scriptures have been made into Hebrew. Such translations, designated in this work by “J” with a superior number, have restored the divine name to the inspired Christian Greek Scriptures in various places. They have restored the divine name not only when coming upon quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures but also in other places where the texts called for such restoration.

To know where the divine name was replaced by the Greek words Κύριος and Θεός, we have determined where the inspired Christian writers have quoted verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures and then we have referred back to the Hebrew text to ascertain whether the divine name appears there. In this way we determined the identity to give Ky′ri·os and The·os′ and the personality with which to clothe them.

As Num. 21:5,6 show it is Jehovah you should not test.

Matt 4:7 Jesus said to him: “Again it is written, ‘You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.’”

NJKV: Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.’”


Carl,

I hope this doesn't prove to be a fulfillment of Matt 7:6 and 2 Tim 3:7.

I wouldn't want to think that you are imitating Satan's questioning practices at Gen 3:1

Answer 5

I cannot elaborate on what The Phantom, Teem, and Achtung Heiss have already said but I would like to say Carl that every time I see one of your questions aimed at our beliefs it reminds me of a scripture.
I think it's because even though you keep promoting the Trinity teaching I remember you telling me once that you were less than comfortable with it.
It seems to me that's why you continue to try to reaffirm your beliefs by contradicting ours in the hope that it will get rid of this doubt that you have (no matter how small)

The scripture is Acts 26:14

Paul kept 'kicking against the goads'
In Bible times, an oxgoad—a long rod, usually tipped with a sharp metal spike—was used for driving and guiding draft animals. If the animal stubbornly resisted the prickings of the goad by pushing against it, what was the result? Rather than gaining relief, it only inflicted pain on itself.

The resurrected Jesus Christ spoke of goads when he appeared to a man named Saul, who was on his way to arrest some of Jesus’ disciples. Out of the midst of a blinding light, Saul heard Jesus say: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? To keep kicking against the goads makes it hard for you.” By maltreating Christians, Saul was actually fighting against God, pursuing a course that could only harm himself
The inspired counsel in God’s Word can motivate and guide us correctly—if we let it. (2 Timothy 3:16)
Resisting its proddings can only harm us.
If something doesn't seem 100% right - then it isn't
(in a spiritual sense, ie the Trinity)

Saul took Jesus’ words to heart, changed his course, and came to be the beloved Christian apostle Paul

Accept the explanations given to you by the JW's, they make sense & are the truth of God's Word and are from Jehovah the only true God.

:)

Answer 6

You are making an assumption I believe. When you will read the context of 1 Cor 11:3 (verse 4-15) you will notice that it speaks of headship/authority. Just as the wife is under the headship of his husband, so is Jesus, he is under the headship of Jehovah. Very simple, just understand the context. Why make further assumption on nature, when the verse clearly speaks of headship? Using you argument, if 1 Cor 11:3 does not prove that Jesus is inferior in "nature" to God, then it would follows that man and wife is not also inferior to Jesus. Since 1 Cor 11:3 speaks of God, Jesus, man and wife!! So why insist on the nature and make your own assumption? 1 Cor 11:3 clearly outlines the heirarchy headship regardless of their nature. It has been the habit of trinitarians to forcely fit the scriptures with their beliefs. However, as they force it it also rips apart. :-) Update: Our understanding in 1 Cor 11:3 has no personal assumption. The verse CLEARLY states headship. Granting that Jesus and God have the same nature, Jesus is still under the headship of God. Just like man and woman, they are of the same nature but woman is under the headship of man. So Jehovah and Jesus are distinct and not equal. You are the one trying to force in your "nature analogy" in 1 Cor 11:3. The context shows headship and it is enought to conclude that someone is head of the another. Besides, we believe Jesus is a god, for he also holds a high position. He is also a spirit just as Jehovah God and the angels. So it can be said that by nature they are the same for they are spirit, yet they are not equal. (Read 1 Cor 15:24-28 about Jesus subjecting himself) You can never take that away from 1 Cor 11:3. If you will force you nature analogy, what then is the meaning of God being the head of Jesus? Nothing? That would be absurd!

Answer 7

The vast majority of Christians never succumb to sexual immorality. Yet, we need to be careful that we do not allow ourselves to pursue a course that leads to a pattern of murmuring that could result in divine disapproval. Paul admonishes us: “Neither let us put Jehovah to the test, as some of [the Israelites] put him to the test, only to perish by the serpents. Neither be murmurers, just as some of them murmured, only to perish by the destroyer.” (1 Corinthians 10:9, 10) The Israelites murmured against Moses and Aaron—yes, even against God himself—complaining about the miraculously provided manna. (Numbers 16:41; 21:5) Was Jehovah less offended by their murmuring than by their fornication? The Bible account shows that many murmurers were killed by serpents. (Numbers 21:6) On an earlier occasion, more than 14,700 rebellious murmurers were destroyed. (Numbers 16:49) So let us not put Jehovah’s patience to the test by treating his provisions with disrespect.

Answer 8

If your purpose is to teach your child becomes proficient in reading both money and lowercase letters. Then you definitely will require the program, Children Learning Reading from here https://tr.im/CUuGs .
Children Learning Reading shows your child phonemes therefore they've really a stable basis in the abilities which will allow them to go on to become a prolific reader. With Children Learning Reading will also is targeted on developing on the abilities learned to permit your youngster to take their reading skills to another level.
With Children Learning Reading is simple to show your youngster how to read.

Answer 9

Not a JW. But just want to add that this is a very good point.

Note also in the New World Translation, the Revelation passages are purposely mistranslated.

Rev 1:8 [NWT] - “I am the Al´pha and the O·me´ga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”

"Lord" is purposely mistranslated. The Greek kuvrio means "supreme ruler" and is not the name Jehovah or YHWH. This same word for "Lord" is used in referring to Jesus in many passages. Using the NWT rendering of "Lord" in the verse above, let's translate the same Greek word used in Matthew 12:8, (Jesus speaking) "For the Son of man is Jehovah God even of the sabbath day."
So, either the New World Translation is lying to suit their doctrine, or Jesus is Jehovah according to their own translation. This blatantly reveals the agenda of the Watchtower organization. They have added to Revelation and thus put themselves under the condemnation of Revelation 22:18.

But I digress... I am going to research this point you are making and add it to my ammunition against that bogus "translation".

walletclan - As for missing scripture, this is because they base their translation on the Westcott and Hort and not the Textus Receptus. The Westcott and Hort is more in line with Watchtower agenda.

Phantom Rhymer - Did you really use the game show "Jeopardy" as a scholarly reference for the NWT being accurate?

Answer 10

Why don't JW's realize that Christ is the Jehovah of the Old Testament? That's what I want to know.

And why is their Bible missing verses? I thought you can't add or subtract to the Bible??????