Jehovahs's Witnesses: Why does the New World Translation substitute "he shed" instead of "of the" in Col 1:20

Question

Are there other Bibles that do that? My impression is that it was changed to obscure that Paul used 'personification' in speaking of Jesus' stauros and the JW's want to minimize the symbolism of the stauros by de-personifying it.

But maybe there's a good reason for it - if so, I will apologize for doubting the motives of the translators. But what good reason could there be?

Answer 1

I don't know. Still, there is no reason to doubt the NWT for a number of reasons. It is very accurate. Not long ago, it was said on national TV that the NWT was the most accurate Bible.

The NWT restores God's name to its rightful place in the Bible, although most Bibles have removed it because of Jewish superstition about using God's name.

The NWT does not contain spurious trinitarian slants like 1 Tim. 3:16 and 1 John 5:7.

Answer 2

The New World translation was based upon the understanding of the bible by Charles T. Russell.

Charles was not a bible scholar and he made some common mistakes when he was developing his doctrine.

Now days the Watchtower society has very many bible schollars who work very hard to try to prove that his original interpretations are correct.

Now to your specific question.

Bible translation is not word for word.. participles and some prepositions are understood by context, or by usage rules of the first century Jews.

Twisting the bible at these places is very easy and cant radically change the meaning of a verse simply by choosing a less often, less correct, or never used context.

Normally this context is a modern one, making it easier for todays persons to be influenced by it, where the older correct first century Jewish context is very alien to modern man.

Find a similiar change in John 1:1

New World Translation:
"In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with GOD and the Word was a god.

King James Version
"In the Begining was the WORD, and the WORD was with GOD and the WORD was GOD"

The "a" inserted has no contextual basis for inclusion.
The simple fact that is is inserted makes what John is writing of completely no use.

He just told the oldest monotheistic society in the world that there are other gods besides YHWH.

As nice as the Watchtower persons are, they have an agenda.
They are working to prove that the personal thoughts and translations of Charles T. Russell are correct,.. and should be followed instead of 1400 years of bible translation, study and knowledge.

Some of what I have said is opinion.
The bible verses I quoted from memmory, as I do not have a New World Translation with me.

Please check my work.

I believe you will find I am correct in these points.


************ To the JW who posted the Greek Below me.

In beginning was the word..."
(en arche en ho logos)
A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.

"and the word was with the God..."
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
This same Word was with God.

"and God was the word." -- Properly translated as "and the Word was God."
(kai theos en ho logos)

This same Word was God.

Your translation of the greek is wrong.
It is a common mistake.
Making it again over and over writing it in greek and then trying to sell it in spite of the last 1,000 years of not only bible translation but general greek as well, does not make it so.

Answer 3

The KJV renders that verse this way: "And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."
(through the blood of his cross makes no sense)
First of all, the "cross" did not belong to Jesus, so how can it be translated as "his cross" ? I'm 100% positive that had Jesus been given a choice, he would not have claimed it.
Secondly, the "cross" did not bleed, but Jesus shed his blood upon it.
The NWT translated this verse accurately and it is easy to understand. We are very thankful that by means of Jehovah's holy spirit, we have a translation that brings praise and honor to the one who reigns supreme over all things.
LOBT

Answer 4

the word is between sign to explain more the sacrifice of Jesus I dont see problem in that, do you?

Colossians 1:20 " and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things by making peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens."

about John 1:1 I guess the one above me will surprise if he see how was written in the orginal greek that is like we have ir our translation, don´t believe me? I have proof of the Vatican manuscript.

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

"θεον" and "θεος" in the hard copy it is easy to see the second word in non capitilized letter.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=68

Answer 5

(Colossians 1:20) and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things by making peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens. NWT

....making peace through the blood...."of the"......on the torture stake...

Your comment makes no sense.

Answer 6

Did the 'cross' bleed or did Christ shed blood on the 'cross'?

The Greek reads 'Thru the blood of the pale of him thru him.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/col1.pdf

The blood is of Jesus, thru Jesus.

Of him does not refer to the pale, but to Jesus

Which is more accurate, Jesus' shed blood, or of the blood?

It is not the 'cross' or 'pale' that saves, it is the shed blood of Jesus, by using of the makes it sound like the 'pale' is bleeding

Jehovah said unless blood is shed, there is no forgiveness.

.

Answer 7

Wow! someone actually read that book..


jk.