Other Religions

The Out-Of-This-World Translation

This dialogue is with "SK" who contacted John Pacheco about his dialogue with Professor Jason BeDuhn on the accuracy of the Jehovah Witness bible, The New World Translation. His critique is posted here. His comments are in red. Pacheco's comments are in blue.

I recently read the conversation between yourself and Jason BeDuhn that you have posted on the Internet. To say the least, I found some of your arguments, as well as some of your criticisms of the New World Translation, a bit bewildering. Even more bewildering was the response to your "Babylon's Rebuttal" by some trinitarians on various message boards. I find it a little contradictory that those who fancy themselves to be "Christians" are so acerbic in their criticisms of Professor Jason BeDuhn. Using words such as, "BeDuhn takes a beating", or "BeDuhn pummeled by Pacheco", or "BeDuhn KO'd by Catholic" hardly befits those who profess to having donned the garments of a Christ-like character.

I have no control over their comments. There's nothing wrong with a little spice in the debate though - a little scrap never heard anyone.

Nor, in my opinion, did your words bear testimony to your claim of "speaking for Christianity".

I speak for the true and historic Christian position. You do not.

Not to mention the fact that you posted professor BeDuhn's private email correspondence without his permission--an act which, in my opinion, does not speak very highly of your character.

I posted that dialogue when I was first getting into apologetics without asking for the good professor's permission. That was not right. I didn't think it was a big deal at the time since there was nothing "private" in it. I was inquiring about a public position that the Professor held on the NWT. I did not alter Professor Beduhn's comments one bit. I was thinking about removing it once I learned about the protocol in these types of discussions, when a gentlemen emailed me about the dialogue and some discussions he had had with Prof. Beduhn. I informed him that I would probably be removing it, but he indicated to me that the Professor, while disturbed that I had posted it, did not now object to its existence. In light of that, and the benefit that the dialogue has posed to people on both sides of the issue, I decided to leave it up. Of course, if the professor wants me to remove it, I will. (I have subsequently received permission from the professor to leave our dialogue up.)

You must admit that you were fairly vicious in excoriating Professor BeDuhn for praising the KIT; and in doing so you have provided food for the never very balanced Anti-Witness community (not that this would bother you of course).

No. I reject that. I was a little "enthusiastic" about some things, and very critical in some spots, but I believe that I was generally charitable. I am sorry you believe otherwise. I think the manner I ended the dialogue indicates my gratitude to the professor.

On the other hand, if one is discerning, and if one pays attention to the content of the discussion and not on your acerbic tone, it is evident that Prof. BeDuhn definitely had the better arguments.

Perhaps. But it was my first real venture into apologetics on this issue. I have improved substantially since then. As you have keenly observed, however, there are people who do not share your views on who had the better arguments.

I admit that it does rankle me though that this gentlemanly professor simply speaks the truth about the KIT and he is being attacked from every direction by anti-Witness fanatics.

Do I have the great distinction of being included in that group? Marvelous.

It is a tremendous credit to Professor BeDuhn that he responded to your polemical diatribes with such a respectful manner.

My arguments were substantive not polemical. He cleared up many misunderstandings that I had, but he still has many insurmountable problems of his own.

Mr. Pacheco, many (trinitarians) feel that you had the upper hand in your discussion with professor BeDuhn, but that is only because they are not sensitive to subtle, respectful forms of argumentation. We live in the age of Jesse Ventura, who is held as a hero. We live in a time when a former WWF wrestler, with a jejune but gaping mouth, is revered and respected. Society today is not sensitive to content, but to delivery; and the delivery people want is one of sarcasm and aggression. That is the delivery you used in your discussion with professor BeDuhn.

I was aggressive, but respectfully so. That’s just the way I am. I am a bit impetuous, but not overly so. If I was not at least a tolerable ass, then why would the professor talk as long as he did? I don't share your assessment, but I apologize to you if you took offense at my attitude. By the way, I don’t like “the Body” either - at least we can agree on that.

Now for a few points regarding your criticisms of the NWT. You claimed that the NWT is a "faulty" translation because certain words are rendered in a way that you believe is "theologically biased." You also asserted that "liberties" were taken by the translators. For example, you stated:

“Why is the NWT not consistent in translating ‘kyrios’ (kurion) as ‘Jehovah’ in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21”. Again, Professor this is another ‘inconsistency’. It is strange that all of the ‘inconsistencies’ of the NWT favour the JW view of Jesus not being equal to God, don’t you think?"

Yet, the Douay Version consistently favors trinitarian theology, does it not? Two examples:

Titus 2:13, "looking for the blessed hope and glorious coming of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ..."

2 Peter 1:1, "...equal privilege of faith with ourselves through the justice of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"

Those who read these verses in the Douay Version have no idea that they are disputed, even by trinitarians. Only Greek grammarians and the especially studious have even the faintest idea that there is much debate on how these two verses should be translated; and that there are a number of translations that favor the NWT's rendering. How many of the DV readers know that even the trinitarian Granville Penn said this regarding these texts:

"Some eminently pious and learned scholars...have so far over stretched the argument founded on the presence or absence of the article, as to have run it into a fallacious sophistry, and, in the intensity of their zeal to maintain the 'honor of the Son,' were not aware that they were rather engaged in 'dishonoring the Father.'" (Supplemental Annotations to the New Covenant, 146)

Let’s look at the Titus passage. (2 Peter 1:1 encompasses the same issues so there is no point going over that one too.) Here are a number of translations of the passage:

“..awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ…” (RSV)

“…looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ…” (DR)

“…as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ.” (NAB) [Footnote: The blessed hope, the appearance: literally, "the blessed hope and appearance," but the use of a single article in Greek strongly suggests an epexegetical, i.e., explanatory sense. Of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ: another possible translation is "of our great God and savior Jesus Christ."]

“…looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus…” (NASB)

“…looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ…” (KJV)

“…while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ…” (NIV)

The first three are from Catholic bibles (the RSV being the Catholic Edition), while the second three are from Protestant Translations. All of these translations clearly point to the divinity of Jesus Christ as understood in the traditional Trinitarian way.

Here is how the NWT renders the passage:

“…while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus…”

Witnesses often appeal to other characters in scripture being referred to as ‘saviour’. They use this to try and demonstrate that Jesus is simply assuming the same kind of title rather than being the source of salvation itself. Yet, it is an undeniable fact that St. Paul in his letter to Titus is referring to God as the ultimate saviour in verse 10 (and, indeed, throughout the letter):

“…nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.” (RSV)

“…not committing theft, but exhibiting good fidelity to the full, so that they may adorn the teaching of our Savior, God, in all things.” (NWT)

Are we to believe that St. Paul has switched his meaning within three short verses between the true Saviour (God) and His alleged ‘instrumental saviour’, Jesus Christ? No, I don’t think so. Aside from the grammatical problems for Witnesses, the context itself is even more conclusive as to how the passage should be translated. The focus of the passage is not a false dichotomy that Witnesses construct between the Father and the Son. Instead, the passage is unquestionably emphasizing the person of Jesus Christ:

“…while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.”

And finally, the ‘Parousia’ is always associated with the glorious manifestation of the Son, not the Father.

In regards to the translation, the Greek renders it like this. (The literal translation is directly below it):

prosdecomenoi thn makarian elpida kai epifaneian thV doxhV tou megalou qeou kai swthroV hmwn awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour of our

ihsou cristou Jesus Christ

Using Strong’s Concordance:

prosdecomenoi <4327> (5740) {AWAITING} thn <3588> {THE} makarian <3107> {BLESSED} elpida <1680> {HOPE} kai <2532> {AND} epifaneian <2015> {APPEARING} thV <3588> {OF THE} doxhV <1391> tou <3588> {GLORY} megalou <3173> {GREAT} qeou <2316> {GOD} kai <2532> {AND} swthroV <4990> {SAVIOUR} hmwn <2257> {OF OUR} ihsou <2424> {JESUS} cristou <5547> {CHRIST;}

There is no definite article before “Saviour” (see swthroV above) in the Greek. Unlike other verses where the insertion of an article does not change the meaning of the passage, the same obviously cannot be held here. Inserting the article in this verse completely changes its meaning by diluting Jesus of his Divinity.

Long ago, eminent Greek Scholar Grandville Sharp posited a grammatical rule (“Sharp’s rule”) when two nouns are joined by the conjunction ‘and’. The website that your rebuttal is posted on describes it like this:

This rule states, in essence: When two singular nouns, adjectives, or participles of the same grammatical case are joined by the Greek conjunction kai ("and"), if the first noun has the article and the second one does not, then both have the same referent. Sharp noted several exceptions to his rule, including proper names and plurals.

While there are some exceptions to the rule, the rule itself seems to hold out exceptionally well. Even subordnationists have conceded this. Of course, they invariable work WITHIN the rule to validate their positions. Here is a sample of a dialogue on Mr. Schmitz’s site which I have offered some comments on:

Bowman-Sharp, pages 9, 10 Although Stafford is correct in observing that Kuehne and others have used this principle to explain (away) apparent exceptions to Sharp's rule, the evidence we have provided undermines the legitimacy of Stafford's principle. In no text considered here is it necessary to appeal to theological preunderstandings in order to know what is meant. In Proverbs 24:21 LXX, for example, we saw that the text is grammatically unambiguous that two persons are meant because the two nouns "God" and "king" are antecedents for the plural pronoun "them."

Stafford-Response This does not explain why the article is not repeated before "king," if the LXX translator considered Sharp's rule valid. You have proven nothing about the key issue. You have simply told us what we already know, but have failed to deal with the issue under consideration: Why did the LXX translators not repeat the article if he/they understood that article-noun-kai-noun constructions always applied to one person? If it is because the context makes the distinction evident, then the context should be the determining factor, or at least one of them, in properly interpreting such passages. But this is not stressed by those who advocate one-person translations for Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1.

Pacheco-Comment This is simple circular argumentation. There is no reason to believe that the LXX translators would not except the article when there were two pronouns present, which would make the meaning obvious - thereby making the insertion of the article obsolete.

Bowman-Sharp, pages 17, 18 Even where the name "Lord" is not in the immediate context, not once does "the great God" carry the force of a proper name.

Stafford-Response Bowman is just making things up again. He is also begging the question. The fact that the Bible makes it clear that Jehovah alone is "the great God," points to the fact that this is a description that is restricted in its usage to Jehovah, and thus carries the restrictive force of a proper name.

Pacheco-Comment This is not legitimate. Of course, “the great God” by itself CAN carry the restrictive force of a proper name as Stafford has rightly pointed out, but it is equally possible that it is merely a personal noun. In determining whether it is used as a proper name or a personal noun, the entire verse must be considered. If “saviour Jesus Christ” is a proper name, then it follows that “the great God” MUST BE also. However, if “saviour Jesus Christ” is not a proper noun, then it follows that “the great God” is not either. Which brings us to the next question…

Bowman-Sharp, page 18 Is "Our Savior Jesus Christ" a Proper Name?
If anything the problems are worse for Stafford's claim that "(our) Savior Jesus Christ" is a compound proper name in both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. He offers no actual evidence for this claim, although he compares the expression "(our) Savior Jesus Christ" to "the compound name, 'Lord Jesus Christ.'"

Stafford-Response The fact is, the expression "Lord Jesus Christ" and "Savior Jesus Christ," even if they were only used once in NT, are either used as compound proper names, or the proper name "Jesus Christ" is used in apposition to the nouns "Lord" and "Savior," and sufficiently restricts their application, even more than an article would, for the referent is identified by name!

Pacheco Comment OK. I was doing a little research on “Saviour Jesus Christ”, and lookie here what I found in 2 Peter 2:20. This passage has the same type of construction as Titus 2:13. Let’s see if Stafford’s argument holds water.

“For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ…(NASB)

“For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ...” (KJV)

“Certainly, if after having escaped from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ…” (NWT)

ei gar apofugonteV ta miasmata tou kosmou en epignwsei tou kuriou kai swthroV ihsou
For if having escaped the pollutions of the world through [the] knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus

cristou Christ

Now, my questions are these:

Since the ‘article-noun-conjunction-noun’ construction is the same as Titus 2:13, why is the NWT not consistent in inserting the definite article in 2 Peter 2:20 before ‘Savior’ like it does in Titus 2:13?

“…glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus…” (Titus 2:13-NWT)

“…..accurate knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ…” (2 Peter 2:20-NWT)

If the NWT was consistent in translating both verses, the 2 Peter 2:20 rendering would be:

...accurate knowledge of the Lord and of [the] Saviour Jesus Christ…

If the Titus 2:13 verse is talking about two separate persons, and if the above CONSISTENT rendering were accepted, what person is “the Lord” if it cannot be identified with “the Savior Jesus Christ”? That is, why does the NWT not translate kuriou as ‘Jehovah’ in this passage when it cannot be Jesus Christ?

I don't consider myself qualified to argue whether it is correct in every case that the Divine Name is found in the Christian Greek Scriptures in the NWT, but at least the reader knows why it was put there. The appendix to the NWT has a discussion wherein they [the translators] make a full disclosure of their reasons for incorporating the divine name.

As Professor Beduhn concede in my dialogue with him, this is not an acceptable translation technique. The Professor admitted that,

“as a biblical scholar I object to intruding the name Jehovah into the New Testament text. Although some the NT writers show that they know this name of God, none of them makes a point of introducing it, and not a single Greek manuscript supports putting the name in. So this is a criticism I have of the NWT.”

The word ‘Jehovah’ does not appear in the Greek text. The NWT actually replaces ‘kyrios’ by inserting the name of God into the text, which is completely unwarranted. No amount of “full disclosure” in the appendix changes this corruption.

On the other hand, the DV and other translations have removed the name Jehovah from their translations. The one name that is mentioned more than any other name in all of Scripture, simply deleted. The name that Jesus Christ himself avowed to have "made known"--simply deleted. It is my opinion that those who would do such a thing are guilty of unmitigated hubris.

“Unmitigated hubris”? Do you know what you are talking about?

The Divine Name

What “name” is mentioned more than any other name in all of Scripture?

It is certainly not “Jehovah” which is a concoction that the Witnesses have assumed. The recorded text designating God’s nature in relation to man is YHWH. The Jews put in vowels between these consonants so they would not pronounce God’s true name, but say “Edonah” or “Lord” instead. In point of fact, Hebrew has no vowels and the pronunciation of many biblical words varied greatly from region to region.

The Masoretes, scribes who lived between 500 to 900 A.D. created a method of pronounication whereby they added tiny dots above and below the Hebrew letters to show how words should be pronounced. Now, in order to prevent the tetragrammaton from being said out loud, for reasons I shall elucidate below, they did not use the above method, but instead inserted the tiny dots for the name ‘Adonai’ below YHWH to ensure the reader did not pronounce the divine name. "The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew word Adonai or Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being." (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1991). The word 'Jehovah', therefore, does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew so why should the Watchtower insist on preserving a FLAGRANT FABRICATION?

In the Hebrew language, there is no ‘J’ sound. Many Jewish names in the Bible have become traditionally Hellenized, and therefore they have assumed Greek pronunciations. For instance, "Jacob" is really pronounced "Yah-kobe" in Hebrew - likewise for “Jehovah” and YHWH. Furthermore, according to Strong’s Concordance (word number 1943) “Hovah” (the second part of “Je-hovah”) actually means “ruin” and “mischief” or “disaster”. It occurs three times in the Hebrew Old Testament (Isaiah 47:11[1], Ezekiel 7:26 [2]). Now the question is: is “mischief” what God’s name is supposed to be rooted on? Give me a break. Far from elevating God’s name, the Witnesses have ironically blasphemed the Holy Name, and go on insisting that everyone do the same!

Dr. J. B. Rotherham, the gentleman scholar you refer to below in your discussion of the “Lukan comma”, states in the preface of his Bible concerning Jehovah: "Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah, which is merely a combination of the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowels in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for JHVH, because they shrank from pronouncing The Name, owing to an old misconception of the two passages, Ex. 20:7 and Lev. 24:16...To give the name JHVH the vowels of the word for Lord [Heb. Adonai], is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal - viz., Gormuna. The monstrous combination Jehovah is not older than about 1520 A.D."

In point of fact, the first recorded use of the word “Jehovah” dates back to the thirteenth century A.D. where a DOMINICAN SPANISH MONK used it in his book “Puego Fidei” of the year 1270. So in other words, the Witnesses try pushing a concocted word first proposed by a Catholic monk in the late middle ages!

The Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropedia, vol. 10) says: "Yahweh-the personal name of the [El] of the Israelites ...The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the consonants of YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH)came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20thcenturies biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions also indicate that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh."

Now, I happened to come across this little tidbit from a subordinationist site who trumpets ‘Yahweh’ as the true name of God instead of ‘Jehovah’:

“Interestingly, even the Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge that the name Jehovah is improper. Their book, "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" freely admits on pages 16 and 18 that Yahweh is the superior translation of the Tetragrammaton. This book has lately been withdrawn. However, in the preface of their "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," we find on page 23 the following admission: "While inclining to view the pronunciation 'Yahweh' as the more correct way, we have retained the form 'Jehovah' because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves equally with other forms, the four letters of the Tetragrammaton JHVH." (from http://www.bodyofmessiah.org/ishisnam.htm).

Did you get that, SK? On the one hand, the Watchtower insists on the ‘correct and pure’ name of God, and make a big deal out of God’s true name being “stricken” from Scripture. And what do we read here? Well, the Watchtower says “we have retained the form 'Jehovah' because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century”. WHAT?!?!? If your criteria is “familiarity”, then I’m sorry to bring you back to reality but “Lord” is much closer. Anyways, since when does “familiarity” replace the Greek text as a criteria in translation? Hmmmm…..interesting.

The SEPTUAGINT

The Watchtower’s official web site says this:

To understand this, remember that the manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures that we possess today are not the originals. The actual books written by Matthew, Luke and the other Bible writers were well used and quickly wore out. Hence, copies were made, and when those wore out, further copies were made of those copies. This is what we would expect, since the copies were usually made to be used, not preserved. There are thousands of copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures in existence today, but most of them were made during or after the fourth century of our Common Era. This suggests a possibility: Did something happen to the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures before the fourth century that resulted in the omission of God's name? The facts prove that something did.

In summary, therefore, the Witnesses bring forth the following argument:

There are a few early fragments of the Septuagint MSS (Greek Old Testament) which do, in fact, contain the tetragrammaton [First published in 1983 by P. J. Parsons (Oxyrhynchus Papyri vol. 50)- Job 42:11-12; The Cairo Geniza, 1959 ed., 222,224 (Papyrus Fouad 266) - Lev. 2-5)]. In light of the older Septuagint versions containing the tetragrammaton, the evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been tampered with, the same as the text of the LXX [The Septuagint--a Greek translation of the Old Testament] has been. And, at least from the third century A.D. onward, the divine name in tetragrammaton [the Hebrew consonants YHWH, usually rendered "Jehovah"] form has been eliminated from the text by copyists....In place of it they substituted the words "kyrios" (usually translated "the Lord") and "theos", meaning "God".

In order to give a fair consideration to these facts, it’s first necessary to provide a little background. The Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture says this:

“In extra biblical Jewish literature and, we may suppose, in Jewish conservation, God was usually designated by circumlocation: the Name, the Place, the Shekinah (dwelling), the Power, the Heavens, the Most High, the Holy One…Such modes of speaking certainly suggest a great advance in reverence, not to say timorousness over the bold addresses of many of the Psalms…and an increasing reserve in converse with God. They suggest also a more remote sense of the divine personality and presence.” (p.736)

In NT times this name was never uttered except by the priests in a few liturgical functions. The utterance seems to have been abandoned between the 5th and 3rd centuries B.C. Possible reasons include:

• an exaggerated fear or superstition on the oral pronunciation of the name;
• to protect the name from pagan magical formulas;
• to preserve the name from being placed on par with pagan deities which also were known by their personal names - Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Diana etc.

There are plenty of instances of the Aramaic ‘mari’ (‘my Lord’) and ‘maran’ (‘our Lord’) which are found in early Christian prayers to Christ (including the Didache, 10:5). And there was opposition to ‘kyrios’, ‘kyria’ in the Roman Caesar Cult (Cf. Martyrol. Polycarpi 8:2) which would have been meaningless unless the early Christians understood ‘kyrios’ as referring to deity.

And of course, there is the outrageous “technique” in arbitrarily dicing up ‘kyrios’ in the New Testament: ‘Lord’ when it refers to Jesus and ‘Jehovah’ when it refers to the Father. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE WAY FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES TO SPEAK TO CHRIST’S IDENTIFICATION AS GOD IF WITNESSES INSIST ON MAKING SUCH AN MONSTROUS PARTITION OF ‘KYRIOS’. Furthermore, the fact that St. Paul uses ‘Lord’ for God in OT passages would compel him to explain that he did not mean it in the sense when he applies it to Christ if Christ were not God. The way that St. Paul insists on the confession that ‘Jesus is Lord’ indicates more than simple reverence. In fact, since the suppression of the Divine Name and adoption of ‘Lord’ was already well established by the time of St. Paul’s writing, he would assuredly be inclined to use ‘Lord’ for God. Yet, it can be shown from thousands of copies of the Greek New Testament that not once does the tetragrammaton appear, not even in the Gospel of Matthew, which was probably originally written in Aramaic. Christianity was PRIMARILY AND STILL IS an ORAL religion. Hence, the Apostles would be inclined to respect the religious heritage that they were brought up in as long as it was not false or unnecessary (Cf. Matthew 23:2).

Witness allegations that there were later ‘corruptions’ in the New Testament MSS which removed the divine name are futile. First, if the copyists made such a sacriligious abomination in later Septuagint and NT MSS, then how do Witnesses know that the NWT does not have other such atrocities or errors? The NWT is based on these LATER Greek MSS which are, apparently, “corrupted”. If one calls into question the textual authenticity of so many affected passages, what basis do Witnesses have for insisting that the bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God?

SK, it seems that it’s a little hypocritical of you to be castigating the DV over the Comma when it does not appear in the original Greek texts, but at the same time say, “Well, there’s ‘corruption’ in the New Testament MSS because it does not contain the tetragrammaton”. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, SK. Let’s make a deal, SK. I will agree to reject the insertion of the Johannine comma because it is not in the Greek New Testament manuscripts if you agree to reject the insertion of “Jehovah” for Lord? Do we have a deal?

Second, we see absolutely NO CONTROVERSY AMONG THE JEWS OR EVEN AMONG THE CHRISTIANS over the this issue EVEN if there were changes later to the Septuagint. Of all the hot-button issues in the history of the Church: from the necessity of Mosaic Law that St. Paul fought against to Justification by Faith Alone during the Reformation, where was this issue in the history of Christianity? Oh yes, I almost forgot, God’s “johnny-come-lately organization” invented it in the twentieth century and presto!!! Now it’s a “controversy”. Good grief.

My problem is with the inconsistency of Witnesses translating ‘kyrios’ - it subverts the truth of the Divinity of Jesus. The issues of using “Jehovah” as God in the New Testament and “Lord” in the Old Testament is NOT a big deal. What IS a big deal is shamelessly stipping Jesus of His Godhead and subordinating Him to a mere creature. What an atrocious blasphemy!

Incidentally, the Catholic Jerusalem bible does use ‘Yahweh’ instead of ‘Lord’ in the Old Testament. Of course, I have no serious objection to using “Jehovah” in the Old Testament - I just think it’s ridiculous to INSIST on it. After all, any vowel can be inserted between the consonants of either YHWH or JHVH so that God’s name could possible be many combinations from JaHaVaH to JoHoVoH.

Additionally, the DV does not give the slightest indication that there is much debate as to how Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1:1 should be rendered; and the Jerusalem Bible, while supplying an explanatory footnote for Titus, does not provide such a footnote for 2Peter 1:1.

An explanation? You’ve got to be kidding. Let me get this straight. You want legitimate translations of these passages to explain why they have NOT added a definite article when one is not present in the Greek???!!!?? Just because subordinationist sects come along butchering the English translation of Sacred Scripture and inventing a “controversy” in their own a-historical minds hardly necessitates legitimate scholars recognizing this absurd fiction.

It is not a little misleading to charge the NWT translators with being "deceptive", when they are actually quite open about why they incorporated the Divine Name in the NT.

Yes, they may be quite ‘open’ about it, but that does not address whether they can legitimately do it.

There is, however, some question regarding whether it is appropriate to withhold the pertinent information about how the words of Paul and Peter should be rendered. And there is NO question that removing the one name that occurs more often then any other name is unjustified.

Or inserting it when it is not there .

Since you claim to be disturbed by the so-called "inconsistencies" found in the NWT, why are you not equally disturbed by, or should I say, "consistent" in your criticisms of your own and various Protestant translations?

Because there are not as many serious issues over the text between Protestant and Catholic translations. Catholics and Protestants can generally have a meaningful discussion over theological questions because the problem is the interpretation of the biblical text instead of the text itself. I have no problem with most Protestant translations…in fact I prefer the NASB. Thank you for providing yet another reason why I should reject the NWT: Catholics and “orthodox” Protestants disagree on many issues, yet the text is generally not one of them…why is that?

YOU ALSO SAID:

"So, in other words, the JWs should have used ‘Lord’ to refer to both Jesus and God, and therefore, their translation is a faulty one. What you are saying is that, in effect, IF you begin with the PRESUPPOSITION that Jesus was not God, THEN (and only then) is it legitimate to translate ‘kyrios’ as ‘Lord’ for Jesus and ‘Jehovah’ for God. This is a classical CIRCULAR argument:"

i) Jesus was not God.
ii) The NWT is translated with this theological presupposition - hence the different translations of ‘kyrios’ - where ‘kyrios’ speaks about Jesus, it is translated ‘Lord’; where ‘kyrios’ speaks about God, it is translated ‘Jehovah’.
iii) Why do Witnesses believe that Jesus was not God? Because the NWT suggests that he wasn't!!!

I had to chuckle at that one. Is it not true that the translators of the DV, the JB, and various Protestant Bibles begin with the "presupposition" that Jesus IS God? Is that not why the translators of the DV, the JB, and a host of Protestant Bibles prefer the trinitarian rendering of Titus 2:13; 2Peter 1:1, and many other disputed texts, when it is admitted that there is a question as to how they should be rendered?

These passages are “disputed” by subordinationists who like to add words which completely change the meaning of the text. Sorry, no cigar here. As for your ‘presuppostion’ retort, it is a rather shallow response. Unless you can accept the testimony of the early Christians who knew the Apostles and confirm the divinity of Jesus, then your opinions are rather baseless. You have your opinion of [altered] scripture, and I have mine. Intelligent people say, “let’s go find out what the early Christians believed to corroborate their interpretation of Scripture.” They don’t believe a nineteenth century cult whose founder was a convicted fraud, and whose wife divorced him on the grounds of infidelity and cruelty.

Worse, regarding 1 John 5:7, was it not a "presupposition" on the part of the Catholic translators that motivated them to ADD words to the Bible that are not supported by the oldest manuscripts, and are now OMITTED by even mainstream trinitarian translations? Notice the exceptional rendering of 1 John 5:7, which is found ONLY in the KJV, the NKJV and the DV:

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."

The hubris does not end with the simple insertion of a whole verse; notice this unbelievable footnote, found in the Douay Bible:

"According to the evidence of many manuscripts, and the majority of commentators, these verses should read: "For there are three that bear witnesses: the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one." The Holy See reserves to itself the right to pass finally on the origin of the present reading."

The "Holy See" reserves the right to ALTER the Bible by ADDING an entire verse that the translators ADMIT WERE NOT IN THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS. You said that the NWT's "inconsistencies favor the belief that Jesus is not God". Well, do not the inconsistencies of the DV et al favor the belief that Jesus IS God? If you wish to use such arguments to discredit the NWT, then you, by default, must discredit your own Church's favorite translations, for when it comes to using "presuppositions" to determine how various texts should be rendered, no one is more guilty than trinitarian translators.

Thank you for demonstrating your apparent lack of appreciation for the issue, and your ignorance of the Catholic Church’s position on the text in particular and the bible in general. I like these opportunities because it gives me the opportunity not only to expose Witness errors, but also to clear up misunderstandings as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches about the bible.

The evidence for the exclusion of the “Comma” is pretty overwhelming, but it is not the only text that supports the Trinity. There are a multitude of others which confirm the Christian position, and Witnesses have demonstrated great imagination in contorting, twisting, and ignoring the text in those instances (i.e. John 10:30).

The DR version of the bible does contain this verse, but the reasons are quite innocuous. The DR is based on copies of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate since we do not have his original. The critical editions of the Vulgate published after the Reformation show whole families of textual glosses and variant readings in the Vulgate tradition. Therefore, the Johannine comma was a gloss in the Latin Vulgate tradition that originated from a copyist's error long after St. Jerome.

The Douay Rheims translation was *deliberately* made from the Latin, because the Latin manuscripts available *at the time* (1582 A.D.) were more certain than the Greek texts available. Indeed, those who are even remotely familiar with this area of biblical history will confirm that subsequent studies of many of these Greek texts then current were found to be corrupt. The Catholic Church, as she always has done from the beginning, guarded and protected the Scriptures to the best of her ability. She wrote the Gospels. She copied the bible. She guards the bible. All things being considered, the Church acted in the most reasonable and intelligent manner in this regard given the time she lived in. And with the exception of Tyndale’s version of the bible, all Protestant versions were all translations from the Latin or from translation of translations from Latin. One would think that given the animosity between Catholics and Protestants during this time, the Protestants would want to go back to “the original languages” and leave the Latin to the Romanists. They did no such thing for the very reason alluded to above.

Here is what one of the best biblical commentaries has to say on the topic:

“The Greek text offers few textual problems, but the Latin text, from which the [DR] is made, has a passage 5:7b, c-8a, which is lacking in all Greek MSS, except very late ones; in all ancient versions, except the Latin…According to some authorities, the passage was first quoted by Priscillian, who died in 380…Others hold that Tertullian, St. Cyrprian, and the whole African Church showed an acquaintance with this text. It is now generally held that this passage, called the Comma Johanneum, is a gloss that crept into the text of the Old Latin and [Vulgate]at an early date, but found its way into the Greek text only in the 15th and 16th centuries.” - A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1953), p.1186

Now does this sound deceptive to you? Or does it sound that Catholic scholars are willing to concede legitimate scholarship? And that is why most current Catholic English translations do not contain that text. The Vulgate is the official text of the Church. In declaring the Vulgate the official text, the Council of Trent did not address the other non-Latin versions. The essential requisite of an official bible at all times is that it is free from doctrinal and moral error. The preference for the Vulgate is not, therefore, primarily based on textual criticism, but on doctrinal accuracy which alone the Holy See has the authority to determine. The Church is not in the business of infallibly deciding textual critical debates; she is in the business of proclaiming the truth. If you open up your DR bible, and look in the first few pages, you will not see an infallible declaration on the text of it. You will see the “imprimatur” which guarantees that the work is free from doctrinal or moral error. I hope you can appreciate the difference.

In any case, most scribal errors are immediately recognizable, and the text of the NT can be established with 99.5% certainty, and the remaining .5% does not affect doctrine. One variant text on the Trinity, after all, does not detract a whole lot from the Latin Vulgate, the DR or the overwhelming evidence for the Trinity in other passages, much less the compelling evidence for the divinity of Jesus Christ.

YOU SAID:

"The key is that ‘I am’ appears as the Greek renders it. Once you start taking such liberty with Holy Writ, then you create a meaning which may restrict a reader’s interpretation of a passage as this one clearly does. At least, ‘I am before Abraham was’ allows for both the traditional and JW interpretation. The same cannot be said for the JW translation, ‘I have been before Abraham was.’ Indeed, the religious significance of ‘I AM’ is lost in this translation, your dismissal of its ‘religious insignificance’ notwithstanding. "

Taking liberties with Holy Writ? I can show you OVER FORTY translations of the Bible, by trinitarians, that have favored the NWT rendering, at least in spirit.

40 translations, eh? They must be very well known. Tell me, what does “at least in spirit” mean?

Do you have any idea how many translators you've just charged with "taking liberties with Holy Writ"? After all, if the NWTTC is guilty, then so are the MANY other trinitarian translators who have rendered John 8:58 in a similar way. If you doubt my word, I'll send you a list I have of these translations.

I’m not interested in paraphrased bibles, and even if they were “scholarly”, I would group them with the NWT if they rendered the translation like the NWT does.

First, the context of the passage (as in many others, esp. John 5:18) make it clear that the Jews understood that Jesus was identifying Himself as God - hence their motivation for trying to stone Him. Of course, Witnesses make pitiful rationales for this, but considering the monotheistic Jewish culture, there is indisputably only one legitimate interpretation for the Jews’ reaction. Here is an excerpt from one of my (JP) dialogues with a subordinationist (SB) on John 5:18, which encompasses the same issue:

SB: Conversely, when Jesus is referred to as God, the context clearly does not even hint at this limitation, but rather confirms that "not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was calling God his own Father, making himself EQUAL to God" (John 5:18).

Again you repeat another worn trinitarian argument.

JP: Must every Trinitarian be old and ‘worn’ to you? Why can’t there be a legitimate argument made by a Trinitarian?

SB: First off, these are John's writings of what the Jews imagined. (not what Jesus said) How do we know this? Well, did Jesus actually break the sabbath? NO. Jesus fulfilled the law, he didn't break it. If Jesus broke the sabbath, he would be imperfect. (and the apostle John obviously knew this, for this was written many years after it happened) So the Jews were wrong about saying that Jesus broke the Law. They were also wrong about what Jesus meant when he called God his Father. They imagined that Jesus meant THAT HE WAS EQUAL to God. But that is NOT what Jesus said or implied. Notice his response to their concepts in verse 19: "Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: "Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner."

JP: Clever. But that is not what St. John is saying, and you *should* know it. Actually, this proves *my* point splendidly REGARDLESS if the Jews were mistaken or not. Their proper understanding is not the issue for you, SB. The real issue is their belief in the first place. Let me demonstrate. So far you have made the following comments:

“I would think that we could agree that if the apostles taught the doctrine, then those Apostolic Fathers should have taught it too. It should have been prominent in their teaching, since nothing was more important than telling people who God is.”

“You are also arguing from a lack of evidence. I have clearly stated that the doctrine of the trinity is not present in the earliest Jewish/Christian writings. It is not because the doctrine was still in development, it simply was understood that so such doctrine was found in the scriptures. It was not until the philosophical underpinnings were present that the doctrine was invented.”

Tell me, IF as you say, the early Christians had *no conception* of the equality of the Father and the Son, it is safe to say that the MONOTHEISTIC Jews did not or should not either. Agreed?

Well then, how could UNBELIEVING and apparently mistaken Jews come up with this *NOVEL* and * BIZARRE* idea that the Father must be equal to the Son????????!!!!!!!!??????

How could they have imagined such a foreign and 4th century A.D. “invented” doctrine?

[Unless, of course, the Jews (and everyone else, for that matter) knew precisely what Jesus was claiming to be, namely, God Himself]

GOTCHA!!!!!

Here is the Greek-Interlinear translation of John 8:58:

eipen autoiV o ihsouV amhn amhn legw umin prin abraam genesqai egw eimi Said to them Jesus verily verily I say to you before Abraham came into being I am.

And here is how the NWT translates it:

“Jesus said to them: ‘Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.’”

Now, the first thing to be remarked is this. Why is the past tense used when describing Abraham, and the PRESENT tense used in describing Jesus? Strong’s concordance (word # 1510) classifies eimi’ (‘am’) {i-mee'}(to be, to exist, to happen, to be present)] as the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb.

Indeed, it does not work very well, when, conceivably, genesqai, could have been used for Jesus as well, but it was not which brings me to another issue….

The Interlinear of John 1:3 is:

panta di autou egeneto kai cwriV autou egeneto oude en
All things through him came into being and without him came into being not even one [thing]

o gegonen
which has come into being

Why is it that the Greek word for “came into being” highlighted above is only used for the created world here and everywhere else, while the Greek word used for ‘am’ (eimi), is the one *reserved* for Jesus alone - that is, instead of saying:

eipen autoiV o ihsouV amhn amhn legw umin prin abraam genesqai egw eimi
Said to them Jesus verily verily I say to you before Abraham came into being I am.

Why does not the Greek use the third person singular present indicative (estin or “was”) in describing Abraham:

eipen autoiV o ihsouV amhn amhn legw umin prin abraam estin egw eimi
Said to them Jesus verily verily I say to you before Abraham was I am.

Remember Prof. Beduhn, and the great arguments you believe he had? Well, I kind of agree in some areas. Let’s see what he said about this passage:

“John 8:58 is best translated ‘I am before Abraham’. The awkwardness of the passage is due to the fact that Jesus uses an idiomatic way of speaking that doesn't translate easily into English. He refers to Abraham in the past tense, and himself in the present, literally ‘I am before Abraham was’. Now your and my elementary English teacher would mark that wrong on something we wrote; it is not proper to mix tenses in English. The NWT tries to solve this by constructing a close tense agreement. But I have to say it really doesn’t work very well.”

Indeed it does not because this is what I found in my travels:

The Kingdom Bible demonstrates Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14. On page 467 of the K.I.T., the Greek text reads: "prin Abraham genesthai ego eimi (Before Abraham to become I am). If Jesus had said, "Before Abraham came into existence I have been," the Greek would have to say, "prin Abraham genesthai ego en" (all recognized Greek scholars agree with this). Exodus 3:14 reads, "Ego eimi ho ohn," (based on the Septuagint) meaning "I AM THAT I AM," according to the King James Bible. It can be shown here that Jehovah God actually calls himself both ego eimi and ho ohn, although the footnote on page 467 fails to mention this. However, the Kingdom Interlinear clearly renders ego eimi as I AM in John 8:24, 13:19, and 18:15, thus faithfully demonstrating Jesus' use of Jehovah's name.

John 8:24 poses similar problems for the those who wish to deny the Divinity of Jesus. The interlinear reads like this:

eipon <2036> (5627) {I SAID} oun <3767> {THEREFORE} umin <5213> {TO YOU} oti <3754> {THAT} apoqaneisqe <599> (5695) {YE WILL DIE} en <1722> taiV <3588> {IN} amartiaiV <266> umwn <5216> {YOUR SINS;} ean <1437> gar <1063> mh <3361> {FOR IF} pisteushte <4100> (5661) {YE BELIEVE NOT} oti <3754> {THAT} egw <1473> {I} eimi <1510> (5748) {AM [HE],} apoqaneisqe <599> (5695) {YE WILL DIE} en <1722> taiV <3588> {IN} amartiaiV <266> {SINS} umwn <5216> {YOUR.}

“Therefore I said to YOU, YOU will die in YOUR sins. For if YOU do not believe that I am [he], YOU will die in YOUR sins.” (NWT)

“Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.”
Footnote - [24,28] I AM: an expression that late Jewish tradition understood as Yahweh's own self-designation (Isaiah 43:10); see the note on John 4:26. Jesus is here placed on a par with Yahweh. (NAB)

Now it is clear that Jesus is using the divine title ‘I AM’ (egw eimi), an expression the footnote to the NAB says is “that late Jewish tradition understood as Yahweh's own self-designation (Isaiah 43:10); see the note on John 4:26. Jesus is here placed on a par with Yahweh.”

The same argument goes for John 13:19.

Interestingly, the teacher of Julius Mantey is one of those translators. Mr. Mantey said that his teacher's translation "has succeeded in surpassing all other translators of the New Testament in bringing out the tense significance of the Greek verbs." His teacher was Charles B. Williams, and Mr. Williams renders John 8:58 this way: "I existed before Abraham was born.". Do you intend to publicly condemn Mr. Williams, Mr. Mantey for supporting him, and the MANY other translators who favor a non-trinitarian rendering of John 8:58 as well?

Now I want all serious observers to read what Mr. Mantey ***REALLY*** has to say about the NWT renderings of controversial passages:

“The aforementioned are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations and perversions of Gods Word. In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on. Also that you publicly and immediately apologize in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1:1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule." On the page before the preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved - no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher." If you have such permission, please send me a photo-copy of it. If you do not heed these requests you will suffer the consequences. Regretfully yours, Julius R. Mantey”

Curious readers are encouraged to read the specific complaints that Mr. Mantey has with Watchtower distortions.

DR. MARTIN: What would you say to a JW who was looking for the truth?

DR. MANTEY: I would advise him to get a translation other than the NWT, because ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the JWs. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the JWs and end up in hell.

Also, there is a professor of Biblical Greek named Kenneth McKay, whose credentials are impeccable, who has written an article wherein he very severely criticized the trinitarian rendering of John 8:58. He offers this excellent rendering: "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born". Do you also charge McKay with "taking liberties"? Perhaps you should take the time to read his thesis on John 8:58 before making any rash judgments. It appeared in the Expository Times, 1996, page 302. However, if you don't have the time to look it up, I'll send it to you if you'd like. Since you have admitted on the Internet that you are not a Greek scholar, perhaps you should be humble enough to defer to those who are when it comes to this verse.

OK, I will if you want to read the opinions of these scholars on John 1:1…drum roll please…

About the New World's translation : "...the Word was a god."

Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."

Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."

Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."

Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"

Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis."

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."

Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." [Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.]

Dr. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."

Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

Either that, or show the same "consistency" you claim the NWT lacks, and go public with your condemnations of ALL of these other translators.

OK. I rebuke all of the translations of this verse which render the English translation as the NWT has done. How is that for consistency? I’m not concerned with obscure, paraphrased, fourth hand translations which don’t have a lot of consumption. The NWT is the bible for a PARTICULAR type of sect, and it is trumpeted as being a superior translation. When such a translation attacks the fundamental meaning of the biblical text, then I come out swinging.

YOU ALSO SAID:

"The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as ‘... and the Word was WITH God as the Word was a god’. How can the Word (Jesus) be ‘a god’ if God says in Deut 32:39, “See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me....”?

See the discussion of John 1:1 I have appended to the end of this email message. The information presented shows that the rendering "the Word was a god" is a legitimate rendering, and for a 'literal' translation, it's the best choice. Many reputable scholars have admitted that "the Word was a god" would be a very natural way to render this verse; they reject it because they say that Jesus IS God (meaning God the Almighty, 2nd person of a trinity). Excuse me, but is that not a "presupposition"?

Please read how many reputable scholars render John 1:1 as ‘a god’ above.

Your reference to Duet. 32:39 doesn't serve your argument at all, for many were considered "gods" in the Bible, and they were not pagan or false gods. Consider:

In the Bible Moses is called god (Ex. 4:16; 7:1 [elohim]), angels are called gods (Ps. 97:7; 138:1; Ps. 8:6; Heb. 2:7 [elohim]), human judges are called gods (Ps. 82:1,6 [elohim]), and satan is called the god of this world (2Corn. 4:4 [theos]). Moses is called God to Pharaoh and Aaron because he was God's representative, and because the miracles he would perform would attest to his having Jehovah's spirit. Angels are called gods because to us humans they certainly are powerful godlike beings. Also, they too, like Moses, represent Jehovah. Human Judges are called gods because they have the power to judge, which gave them great authority over men's lives. Jesus is called thoes because he is all of these things.

But you say, "in the Bible, angels, humans, false gods, and Satan are also called "gods." Yes, it is true that the term is used, but the key is to look at the CONTEXT of the passages. *NO WHERE* does it suggest as their being true God by Nature, but rather that they had performed some God like function. Jesus, on the other hand, made claims that are clearly outside of a mere title (Cf. John 10:30).

For a more comprehensive treatment of this subject, read my “Monologue on the Trinity” on my page.

“But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life eternal.” (1 John 5:20 NWT)

“Houtos” is simply translated “This”, but it has a more emphatic meaning of ‘this person here’. Contextually, Jesus is the center of the passage and the grammatical antecedent of ‘houtos’. So Jesus is the ‘true God’.

“The activities of Christ after His Baptism, and especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in His flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, He gave positive indications of His two natures: of His Deity, by the miracles during the three years following after His Baptism; of His humanity, in the thirty years which came before His Baptism, during which, by reason of His condition according to the flesh, He concealed the sings of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before the ages.” - St. Melito of Sardes, Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai, The Guide, Ch. 13, 171 A.D.

He is Jehovah's representative; he performed great miracles which testified to his having Jehovah's spirit; he is a powerful spirit being; and he will ultimately act as the judge of mankind. The fact that Jesus is called God does not make him Jehovah, for Christ himself affirmed that Jehovah was HIS GOD not once but SEVEN times! Jesus confirmed that Jehovah is his God at Matt. 27:46; John 20:17, Rev. 3:2; and Rev. 3:12 (4 times).

1) Hebrews 1:8-10 (RSV): “But of the Son he says, ‘….And thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning…’”

Why is the Father referring to His Son as ‘Lord’ if the Father is greater than the Son?

Perhaps you would like to comment on these two passages:

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8 NWT).

“There is only one being which is unchanging, and that is God” (Cf. Malachi 3:6 RSV).

YOU ALSO SAID:

"You state “for John to say ‘the word was with God and the word was God’ would be a real stretch in comprehension for a 1st Century audience.” Oh really? Why is that? We KNOW that the early Christians worshipped Jesus as God as evidenced by their creeds so why would this be a ‘real stretch in comprehension.’

What "creeds" are you referring to? If you are not referring to the Bible, then I reject such creeds.

Of course you do, my misled friend. Why would care what the hearers of the Apostles thought and wrote? After all, everyone *knows* that a nineteenth century sect is closer to the Apostles’ teachings than the early Christians. Here is a small selection of just what the early Christians believed:

Mathetes: "[The Father] sent the Word that he might be manifested to the world . . . This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old . . . This is he who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son" (Letter to Diognetus 11 [A.D. 160]).

Pope Dionysius: "Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate" (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).

Methodius: "For the kingdom of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is one, even as their substance is one and their dominion one. Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we worship the one Deity in three Persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreated, without end, and to which there is no successor. For neither will the Father ever cease to be the Father, nor again the Son to be the Son and King, nor the Holy Ghost to be what in substance and personality He is. For nothing of the Trinity will suffer diminution, either in respect of eternity, or of communion, or of sovereignty" (Oration on the Psalms 5 [A.D. 305]).

If you are referring to the Bible, then I think you may be reading more into the use of "proskyneo" then was intended by the Bible writer. And insisting that it be rendered "worship" instead of "obeisance" is a bit dogmatic, since the word proskuneo does mean obeisance, as well as worship. Moreover, the word prosekynesen (a derivative of proskyneo) is used in the Septuagint, in the Old Testament, for the homage or obeisance paid to Kings. David did prosekynesen before Saul (1 Kings 24:9 in the LXX); Ab'igail did prosekynesen before David (1 SA 25:23); and a man did prosekynesen before David (1 SA 1:2 [2 Kings in the LXX]) Since most translations do not say that Saul or David were "worshipped" when translating these verses, why are you not criticizing them?

Thank you for providing me with the above citations. I learned about the issues of using ‘proskuneo’ from my dialogue with Prof. Beduhn. The bottom line, then, is that ‘proskuneo’ can mean EITHER ‘to bow down to in veneration’ or it can mean ‘adoration/worship’. I concede this. The word is inconclusive since it can mean either. It is therefore NEUTRAL, and dependent on context. The best you can do is….well…show that it is inconclusive - which suits me just fine if you know where I am going with it (wink, wink).

Proskuneo is not "worship" in the highest form of worship. "Latreuo" or “sacred service” is. The bible is clear in Revelation that BOTH the Father and the Son are to receive “latreuo”:

“There shall no more be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall worship [latreuo] him…” (Revelation 22:3)

Who would receive ‘latreuo’? Who is the ‘Him’? If you want to be grammatical about it and had to choose between the Father and the Son, it would seem to me that the last referent is the one who should receive sacred service - which, in this passage, is the Lamb, Jesus Christ.

Finally, and this is quite unbelievable, why do you not criticize one of your own Church's favorite Bibles for the same "inconsistency"? Observe:

Rev. 3:9: Idou didoo ek tees sunagoogees tou Satana toon legontoon heautous Ioudaious einai, kai ouk eisin alla pseudontai. Idou poieesoo autous hina heexousin kai proskuneesousin enoopion toon podoon sou kai gnoosin hoti egoo eegapeesa se. (As rendered in my transliterated Bible)

"Now I am going to make the synagogue of Satan--those who profess to be Jews, but are liars, because they are no such thing--I will make them come and fall at your feet and admit that you are the (10) people that I love."----The Jerusalem Bible

Proskuneesousin (or prosekynesen), which is a derivative of proskyneo, and which you assert should only be rendered "worship", is rendered "fall at your feet" in one of your own church's Bibles! If you want "consistency" then I think it is only fair that you show "consistency" in your objections.

Oh how I am sooooooo glad you brought this up because it shows how you have fallen for the Watchtower’s malicious lies. I do not say that their research is just shoddy. That would be excusable because we all make mistakes. This particular ‘mistake’ is nothing of the kind. It is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation and equivocation. I want you to pay very close attention to this.

I was initially surprised at your argument since it appeared to carry at least some weight, but knowing this was probably not your own original research (nothing wrong with that by itself of course), but that of the Watchtower’s, I was not to let it go by so easily. So this is what I did. I looked up ‘proskuneo’ using Strong’s concordance (word #4352), and it turned up 65 times in the New Testament. My suspicion was that ‘proskuneo’ would be translated as ‘fall at your feet’ in the Jerusalem Bible in order to remain consistent in its translation. If I could just find one or two instances of ‘proskuneo’ being translated like this when it referred to Jesus, then your objection essentially falls on its face because the translators are not deliberating trying to segregate the translation of ‘proskuneo’ according to its subject i.e. Jesus or other people. I started with the Gospel of Matthew and guess what I found? Well, ALL OF THE REFERENCES IN MATTHEW WERE CONSISTENT IN THEIR RENDERING OF ‘PROSKUNEO’!!!!! THEY ALL TRANSLATED IT AS “FALL AT YOUR FEET” (or similar words). Don’t believe me? Here let me show you:

• Matthew 2:2 - “We saw his star as it rose and have come to do him homage.”
• Matthew 2:8 - “…so that I may too do him homage.”
• Matthew 2:11 - “…and falling to their knees, they did him homage.”
• Matthew 8:2 - “A leper now came up and bowed low in front of him.”
• Matthew 9:18 - “…who bowed low in front of him…”
• Matthew 14:33 - “The men in the boat bowed down before him…”
• Matthew 15:25: “…But the woman had come up and was kneeling at his feet.”
• Matthew 28:9 - “And the women came up to him and, falling down before him…”
• Matthew 28:17 - “When they saw him the fell down before him…”

The point is that legitimate bibles use the word consistently, and let the reader interpret its meaning - which can mean either our traditional use of the word today - being ‘adoration’ or simply just ‘obeisance’. My point is that the NWT should not impose its theology by dicing up ‘proskuneo’ between obeisance and worship - one to apply to Jesus and other creatures and the other to God. Translate the Greek word consistently, and then try and explain passages that appear to go against your interpretation. The Watchtower does the exact opposite. It imposes its theology on ‘proskuneo’ to take the ‘difficulty’ out of the interpretation. To me, that is an abomination.

Even Professor Beduhn agrees, at least somewhat:

“You are correct that the NWT is inconsistent in how it translates forms of ‘proskuneo’. This word literally means to prostrate oneself, to bow down or to kiss the ground before someone. So, for example, when one of the gospels says that the disciples “worshipped” Jesus, it means that they knelt or bowed down around him, as an act of deference and reverence. The old English word “obeisance” means the same thing, and in the time of the King James version “worship” also meant that. King James’ own subjects might be expected to “worship” him, by bowing down before him. But in modern English, we have forgotten this meaning of “worship” and take the word to refer to an act of prayer or veneration to God. The NWT tries to preserve the range of meaning of the Greek by using obeisance when dealing with a physical act in the presence of Jesus, and using worship when it refers to an abstract concept of reverence to God who is not physically present to the worshipper. I think the NWT would do better if it picked one word that carries the full range of meaning and used it consistently. Obviously what they have done raises questions about the motivation for the choice.”

Regarding the NWT translators "deceiving" people by not using "worship" in Hebrews 1:6, this is a bold claim. If you open the NWT Reference Bible, you'll see that the footnote clearly states that "worship" is one of the possible renderings; so who is being deceptive? Certainly not those translators of the NWT who are quite open and honest in explaining why they prefer certain renderings, and who are typically scrupulous in including explanatory footnotes in the Reference Bible.

Speaking about Jesus, Hebrews says, "And let all God's angels worship Him." (Hebrews 1:6) - New World Translation (editions 1953, 1960, 1961, 1970)

I’m afraid, the WTS is on the hook because of pervious translations. That’s why it’s in the “explanatory notes” of the newer editions. But shhhhhhh….I won’t tell if you don’t.

YOU ALSO SAID:

"It seems to me that the only way one can maintain that there are no contradictions in the bible and still make sense out of John 1:1 is to understand this passage in the traditional Trinitarian formula, no?"

NO! Biblical monotheism allowed for others besides Jehovah and Jesus to be viewed as Gods as I pointed out above. Therefore, since we both agree that the Bible does not contradict itself, we must harmonize the fact that there is only one true God, with the FACT that others are correctly called god, or gods (elohim) in the Scriptures. How can this be done?

“gods” in what sense? Certainly not the divine sense. Simply because there are *no* other *gods* (Cf. Deut 32:39) in the sense you are conceiving - unless you want to rewrite the Jewish religious tradition . Do you know what *kind* of ‘gods’, Jehovah is talking about in Deuteronomy. He is talking about the kind of ‘gods’ that you claim Jesus is.

“A key verse in the JW argument is John 1:1, which in the Greek is theos en ho logos ("god was the word"). The translators of the New World Translation wrongly render this as "the word was a god" instead of "the word was God," found in the majority of English translations (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, etc.). In support of their wrong translation a list of verses is supplied where an anarthrous predicate (a noun in Greek not preceded by "the") is translated in most versions with an indefinite article "...a/an _____." The issue in that list, however, is quite different from that in John 1:1. In each of the examples the Witnesses provide (Mk. 6:49, 11:32; Jn. 4:19, 6:70, 8:44, 9:17, 10:1, 10:13, 10:33, 12:6, 18:37), the predicate is invariably one of a generic class of which there are clearly many members: "prophet," "slanderer," "murderer," "liar," "thief," "hired man," etc. In the case of John 1:1, however, the multiplicity of "gods" is not at all established. We must either understand that "in the beginning" there was more than one "God/god" or that in fact there was and is only one. Since most translators are monotheists, they have properly translated the Greek equative clause by not including the indefinite article. Jesus, the Word, is "God," not "a god."”
- NIV Biblical Scholar

"…For 'before the morning star was;' and 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and "This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, BOTH GOD AND MAN…" and "The Word", who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends." (St. Clement, Exhortation to the Heathen, Ch. 1)

Let's begin with the word SAVIOR. Why did Jehovah say that there were no other saviors but him, when the Bible has several examples of others who Jehovah commissioned as saviors (see 2Kings 13:5; Neh. 9:27; Isa. 19:20)? Also, why did Jehovah say that there are no other Gods but him, and then refer to Angels, Moses, Human Judges, and Jesus as gods? I believe that the answer to both questions is the same. Jehovah can call himself the only savior because he is the source of salvation. Others can be referred to as savior because they are the means by which Jehovah saves.

It is similar with the title "God". Jehovah is the only true God because he is the only one whose godship is self-emanating. Others can be referred to as God because they draw their divinity from Jehovah. Jehovah is the supreme (Almighty) self-contained God; others are god functionally and positionally, that is, by assignment. Jehovah can choose to confer godship or divinity upon his creation; their godship is therefore derived from Jehovah, and they are therefore 'gods' in a lesser sense. The reason this is not a contradiction to monotheism is that all who derive their divinity from Jehovah, express their divinity to the glory of Jehovah. Their divinity reflects back to the one who conferred it upon them and thereby serves to bring glory and honor to the one supreme God. This is reminiscent of the words "Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father." Therefore, those who are rightly called "god(s)", express their divinity to the Glory of God the Father. I don't think you can deny the fact that Moses, human judges, and angels are all called "God" or "gods", and that they are still no part of a trinity. One of the reasons this is so hard for 20th century people to grasp is because we've come to base our understanding of what "monotheism" means on the words of men. Such men have been viewing the term through trinity-tinted lenses for many centuries. I believe that, rather than understanding the term "monotheism" through the eyes of some theologian or dictionary writer, we should base our understanding on what the Bible says. Doing so gives a much less restrictive definition--a definition which is very well captured by an author named Greg Stafford,

An author? Oh…you mean the guy who wrote “Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended”?

SK: ….who defines it as follows:

"Biblical Monotheism involves the recognition, acceptance and worship of only one true, uni-personal God, the Father. Other beings can and are rightly considered 'gods' in a different, lesser (that is, a positionally/functionally conferred and/or ontologically derived) sense than the true God. This is true of them either collectively or as individuals, so long as their position and glory preserve or further enhance the uniqueness of God."

Only through Jesus can you be saved (Cf. John 3:17, Acts 16:30, etc.) The NT is replete with examples of Jesus being the only way to the Father: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; NO ONE comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). Does that sound like you can be saved by Moses or Elisha? Give me a break. Anyone who reads 2 Kings 13:5, one of the references that you provide, can clearly see that it is referring to saving the nation Israel from her national enemies. That’s one of the reasons the Jews missed the bloody boat on who the Messiah was. They were expecting a great political and military messiah, and they didn’t see it in Jesus who was obviously not that kind of saviour. The passages you cite are not primarily speaking about salvation and the after life. Good grief. Is that the best that the WTS can do? That’s pretty pathetic.

YOU ALSO SAID:

"AND (This one is really unbelievable!)

"The NWT translates the Greek word ‘esti’ (estin) as ‘is’ in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mt 26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc.). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this Greek word as ‘means’ in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the translation of the word ‘esti’? If the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word ‘esti’ as ‘is’ in these verses, what would these verses say?"

What I find unbelievable is your objection to rendering esti as means, considering the fact that the Douay Bible has A WHOLE VERSE added to the text at 1 John 5:7. Don't be "inconsistent" yourself; if you think it is so outlandishly unacceptable to use a word to clarify a meaning, then you must think it's downright unforgivable to add a WHOLE VERSE. Moreover, if you look up Matthew 26:26 in the NWT Reference Bible, you'll see that there is a footnote that quite openly says that the literal meaning of the Greek estin is "is"! Once again, Mr. Pacheco, who is being deceptive? Certainly not those translators who are scrupulous in providing explanitory footnotes to most of the texts you criticize.

Surely you jest. If you want to compare one textual gloss that has been conceded by all Catholic biblical scholars (and the verse being omitted in more current Catholic bibles) with the translational and etymological pollution of the NWT demonstrates, sorry to say, an abysmal lack of sincerity.

THEN YOU SAID:

Why not just let the ‘chips fall where they may’ as other Protestant translations do, and argue the INTERPRETATION of Jesus’ words INSTEAD of DECEIVING readers by forcing their interpretation on the passage by changing the words?

You can't be serious! Let the "chips fall where they may"? Is the addition of an entire verse at 1 John 5:7 letting "the chips fall where they may"? Is withholding the fact that there is much argument over how Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1:1 should be rendered letting "the chips fall where they may"? Is the INSERTION of "the Alpha and Omega" at Rev. 1:11 in the KJV and the NKJV "letting the chips fall where they may"? Is withholding the fact that the a very common and acceptable way to render article-noun-verb-noun constructions, such as the one found at John 1:1c, is to include the article, "letting the chips fall where they may"? Are the MANY such abuses of Scripture found in the various Protestant Bibles, which serve only one purpose--TO SUPPORT A PRESUPPOSITION--letting the "chips fall where they may"? I own about 40 translations of the Bible, so I know whereof I speak. Some Protestant translations are dripping with trinitarian bias. How about this gem from the Amplified Bible: "In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself." Or what about this one, "yea, the Word was God Himself" (Williams). How do these compare to the original Greek? Not very well, I'm afraid. If you really insist that only translations that "let the chips fall where they may" are acceptable, then you've just condemned every Catholic and Protestant Bible in existence; because none of them have "let the chips fall where they may".

I’ve addressed most of these objections above. No need to repeat them again. Your arguments are weak, and your inferences are unfounded.

THEN YOU SAID:

"If you had read my original objection, it was not with merely adding words, but adding or changing words that effectively cut off a possible interpretation or completely change the meaning of a passage. That’s my beef."

NO, that's not your beef. Your beef is against Jehovah's Witnesses and their beliefs. If your beef were against "changing words to cut off possible interpretations" you would have an equal beef with the Douay Version for adding 1 John 5:7, as I've already shown. If your sincere objective were to make sure that Bible translators towed the mark, you'd be out there attacking a vast multitude of translations, which are far more "deceptive" then you think the NWT translators were. But you've chosen to criticize only the NWT. Why? Because they had the courage to oppose the 'orthodoxy' and its 'authority'.

No. I’ve chosen to criticize the NWT because its proponents claim it to be something it is assuredly not. The translation has parts that are a BIG LIE right from the Pit of Hell.

You have ignored the many other translations that have questionable renderings, because their translators have obediently fallen in line with the orthodox doctrine of the trinity. Moreover, when it comes to "changing words that effectively cut off a possible interpretation", since when has it been the role of Bible translators to make any interpretation possible? Do your Catholic and Protestant translations make all interpretations possible? No, they do not. The role of the translator is to render the Greek into intelligable English without changing the meaning; it is NOT to accommodate every possible pressure group so as to avoid giving offense. If you want such a Bible, you are welcome to use the latest from the Oxford University Press (the "Inclusive Version")--they've accommodated nearly everyone.

Thank you for giving such a cogent argument for the necessity for one single body who has the authority from God to translate the bible and (GASP!) interpret it correctly (HORROR of HORRORS!). Oh, by the way, did I mention they’d have to be in existence before 1870?

THEN YOU SAID:

"It seems to me that you have admitted my original point: there are ‘mistakes’ and ‘inconsistencies’ in the NWT translation. I am not, however, as forgiving as you seem to be since I believe that they are calculated distortions."

I don't think but I KNOW that the addition of 1John 5:7 was a "calculated distortion." I KNOW that the addition of "The Alpha and Omega" in Rev. 1:11 by the KJV and the NKJV was a calculated distortion. And if being deceptive is determined as much by what you withhold as it is with what you explain, then the withholding of the pertinent information surrounding Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1:1 was deceptive. Are you "forgiving" of your own Churches "calculated distortions"? Do you object when pro-trinity "theological presuppositions" are used to determine how verses should read? Not so as any one would notice, and certainly not on your web page.

This is just more of the same old, same old. No further comment. My contemporaries on the Protestant side can defend the KJV.

THEN YOU SAID:

It is abundantly clear from the above (and many other passages which I would be happy to provide to you) that the NWT translators not only DISTORT the original Greek and add words (and commas!), but they do so in order to support their doctrines.

Add commas? There are no commas in the original Greek text, so how could anybody possibly "add commas"? More to the point, are you saying that the particular place your translators have chosen to ADD the comma is not actually an addition? If there are no commas in the original Greek text, and your Bible obviously has a comma (I'm sure you mean Luke 23:43) then your translators have ADDED a comma. At least the comma in the NWT makes sense! After all, if Jesus died, and was in hades for three days, then he certainly was not in 'paradise' that day was he?

Why would Jesus go to “hades” in the first place? To redeem the reprobate and the eternally lost? Do you even know what you are talking about?

--especially considering your own church's doctrine regarding hades or HELL. Did Jesus consider HELL to be a paradise?

No, of course not. But then again, you don’t know where Jesus went or why. He did not go to the ‘hell’ that you are thinking about - the one where Satan and the damned are. But more on this in just a little while…

Moreover, since the Bible says that Jesus was the first one back from the dead, and since he wasn't back from the dead for three days, the criminal that Jesus promised would join him in paradise couldn't have been there "this day" either, could he. If you assert that the verse should be read as the Douay renders it, then you are asserting one of two things:

(1) That the criminal and Jesus both considered hades or HELL to be a paradise (which makes no sense), or (2) that they were both resurrected the same day (which is not Scriptural).

The verse in the DV reads: "Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise." The verse in the NWT reads: "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." Only the rendering found in the NWT makes sense and is in harmony with the rest of the Bible. By the way, the concept of a two-chambered hell is not supported by Scripture.

First, “paradise” is not necessarily heaven. There was another place known as “Sheol” (in Hebrew) or “Hades” (in Greek) - the abode of the righteous. Now, Scripture is clear that, AFTER HE WAS “DEAD”, Jesus went to preach to the dead captives in 1 Peter 3:19-20; 4:6 (Cf. Romans 10:7, Acts 2:27). There are no sinners in Heaven (Rev 21:27), and hell cannot have saved persons in it (Rev 20:10,15). Ergo…there is a third place or state - even if only temporarily. So the paradise that Jesus is talking about is Sheol in this verse. If you follow the LXX rendering, it is similar to the Garden of Eden (Cf. Gen. 2;18), signifying the place of the blessed, but not heaven itself.

Second, I don’t have the reference handy, but I read somewhere that the Jews did not necessarily considered “today” a strict 24 hour period. Unfortunately, I don’t remember where I read it, but if I come across it again, I’ll let you know.

Third, the context of the immediately preceding passage highly favours the comma being placed before “today”.

“But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:40-43, NIV)

The good thief, whose name was Dismas according to tradition, asked that Jesus remember him WHEN He comes into his kingdom. And Jesus answer exactly when Dismas would be with Him - today.

Fourth, I wish to comment on this exchange on the page where your rebuttal to me is posted:

Bowman: “It is highly significant that out of the 74 times the expression occurs in the Bible, the NWT places a break immediately after it 73 times; Luke 23:43 is the only exception. (Most translations follow this pattern in all 74 instances.)”

Schmitz: “It is only at Luke 23:43 that "today" follows "Truly I tell you." This is significant because of a frequent Hebrew idiom. E.W.Bullinger,already quoted, says regarding this Hebrew expression; "I say unto thee this day" was the common Hebrew idiom for emphasising the occasion of making a solemn statement(see Deut.iv. 26,39,40; v. 1; vi. 6; vii. 11; viii. 1,11,19; ix.3; x.13; xi. 2,8,13,26,27,28,32; xiii. 18; xv. 5; xix. 9; xxvi. 3,16,18; xxvii. 1,4,10; xxviii. 1,13,14,15; xxix. 12; xxx. 2,8,11,15,16,18,19; xxxii. 46).”

Pacheco: Why is it that this “FREQUENT Hebrew idiom” is used only once in the entire New Testament? Does this not suggest that the solemnity of a particular teaching should not necessarily be linked to including this Hebrew idiom - which Christ obviously did not stress. In fact, there are a multitude of more important passages - at least from a doctrinal point of view which have the “Truly I say to you…” formula, but DO NOT have “today”. Consider these doctrinal doozies which do not have “today”:

"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (NASB)

“Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me. (KJV)

“Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.’”(NIV)

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” (RSV)

All theology aside, however, your assertion that some sort of liberty was taken by the NWT translators is profoundly surprising for another reason. One of the best Greek texts, namely Codex B or Vaticanus (Vatican 1209) of the fourth century CE, which is one of the few Greek texts that actually contains punctuation, HAS THE COMMA IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE THE NWT HAS IT! Perhaps you should call the Vatican Library and let your criticisms of this particular Codex be made known, just for the record. After all, you do want to be "consistent" in your criticisms don't you?

Well, I cannot comment here because I don’t have access to the Codex. I don’t have a lot of respect or trust for Watchtower claims and sources. I have been burned on a number of occasions by trusting Watchtower sources, spending hours trying to reconcile Watchtower ‘facts’ with my beliefs only to find out later that these ‘facts’ were pernicious, manipulated half truths which distorted the full truth. Sorry, SK, I cannot take your word for it. It’s not that I don’t trust YOU, but I can’t trust the source of your information.

The Curetonian version of the Syriac translation (dated to the fifth century CE), according to the translation by F.C. Burkitt, renders Luke 23:43 this way: "Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden." Rotherham's Emphasized Bible says, "Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise". Obviously Mr. Rotherham accepted that the word semeron had reference to the time the promise was made rather than to the time it was to be fulfilled. The Concordant Literal New Testament renders the verse this way: "And Jesus said to him, Verily, to you am I saying today, with me shall you be in paradise." In the above edition with the Greek text and commentary on facing pages, on page 93, we read: "The Lord will not come into his kingdom until after the great judgments which commence the Lord's day....The Lord assured the malefactor that his request will be granted, and that his present sufferings shall be exchanged for the delights of that day." The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Annointed, (1958), by James L. Tomanek reads: "Indeed today I say to you, you shall be with me in paradise." Notice what German translator L. Reinhardt has to say about this text:

"The punctuation presently used [by most translators] in this verse is undoubtedly false and contradictory to the entire way of thinking of Christ and the evildoer...[Christ] certainly did not understand paradise to be a subdivision of the realm of the dead, but rather the restoration of a paradise on earth."

Frankly, I’m not impressed with subordinationist opinion or obscure translations.

I wonder how "consistent" you will be in letting your criticisms of the above translators be made known.

Like I said, obscure and irrelevant modernist translations don’t make me lose a lot of sleep.

THEN YOU SAID:

There are instances in the bible itself of the Apostles PUTTING DOWN AND SILENCING dissent, signifying their authority to do so (Galatians 1:6-10, 1 Corinthians 4:21, 5:4-5, 5:12-13). Jesus, Himself, gave them authority to do so (Cf. Matthew 18:17)....So when the Apostles leave this earth, does their authority disappear with them, leaving the Church in utter confusion when false teachers would introduce error, or as you put it ‘various systems of belief’ irrespective of the Truth? Is that what you think God’s master plan is like?

But show me where in the Bible it condones burning people at the stake to silence them; or torturing them to help guide them to the correct understanding.

Here let me give you a few examples of just how politically incorrect God’s unfathomable justice is. Next time you want to condemn the Catholic Church, make sure you are not pointing the finger at God Himself. Compare the following passages to the NWT - are there any significant differences? No? Then why are you complaining?

“Moses also said to Korah, 'Listen to me, you Levites! Is it too little for you that the God of Israel has singled you out from the community of Israel, to have you draw near him for the service of the Lord's Dwelling and to stand before the community to minister for them? He has allowed you and your kinsmen, the descendants of Levi, to approach him, and yet you now seek the priesthood too…Then, when Korah had assembled all his band against them at the entrance of the meeting tent, the glory of the Lord appeared to the entire community, and the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 'Stand apart from this band, that I may consume them at once. So they withdrew from the space around the Dwelling [of Korah, Dathan and Abiram]. And fire from the Lord came forth which consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense.” (Numbers 16:8-10,19-21,35).

“And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to their shame among their enemies), then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, "Who is on the LORD's side? Come to me." And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. And he said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'Put every man his sword on his side, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.'" And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.” (Exodus 32:25-28)

“So Gideon and the hundred men who were with him came to the outskirts of the camp at the beginning of the middle watch, when they had just set the watch; and they blew the trumpets and smashed the jars that were in their hands. And the three companies blew the trumpets and broke the jars, holding in their left hands the torches, and in their right hands the trumpets to blow; and they cried, "A sword for the LORD and for Gideon!" They stood every man in his place round about the camp, and all the army ran; they cried out and fled. When they blew the three hundred trumpets, the LORD set every man's sword against his fellow and against all the army; and the army fled as far as Beth-shit'tah toward Zer'erah, as far as the border of A'bel-meho'lah, by Tabbath. And the men of Israel were called out from Naph'tali and from Asher and from all Manas'seh, and they pursued after Mid'ian. And Gideon sent messengers throughout all the hill country of E'phraim, saying, "Come down against the Mid'ianites and seize the waters against them, as far as Beth-bar'ah, and also the Jordan." So all the men of E'phraim were called out, and they seized the waters as far as Beth-bar'ah, and also the Jordan. And they took the two princes of Mid'ian, Oreb and Zeeb; they killed Oreb at the rock of Oreb, and Zeeb they killed at the wine press of Zeeb, as they pursued Mid'ian; and they brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon beyond the Jordan.” (Judges 7:19-24)

That was the preferred method of the historic Church. To guaranty that no "error" was allowed to infiltrate the faith, the hammer of heresy was introduced. I don't think I need elaborate.

No. I don’t think you need to elaborate on how you have a truncated and typically secularized view of Church History. You need to read more WHY things happened in their HISTORICAL context, and then compare some of these incidents with 2000 years of Church history.

As for the Bible, it allows for the act of expulsion, not torture or murder. The former (expulsion) is practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses; the latter (torture and murder) by the historic Catholic Church.

Well, what do you expect from a sect that has been around only a fraction of the time that the Catholic Church has? There are rogues and saints in the Church. That’s the way it’s always been. Each will go to his place according to his works. Being baptized ‘Catholic’ does not guarantee you heaven, it just makes it easier to get there.

Can you tell me why the Jewish People did not have the “right” to dump King David because he murdered Bathsheba’s husband? You don’t know the bible, SK. Find me one instance in the bible where God, despite the treachery of his anointed leaders, gives the Jewish people the mandate to usurp the leader’s authority? Just one example will do.

Sincerely,

SK P.S. Below is the discussion of John 1:1 I mentioned above. Since the Bible provides the food of life--bon apitit.

Yes, the bible does provide the food of life, but it also acts as a double edged sword for those wish distort its teaching.

I have not ventured to comment on the “scholarly” opinions that you have provided at the bottom of your rebuttal to me. Interested readers can gauge the strength of the arguments by visiting this page.

Blessed Be the Most Glorious and Inexhaustible Triune God: Defined by the Catholic Church at Nicea, and guarded by Her today.

SK, repent of your error before it’s too late and end up cut off from Jehovah forever. Jesus Christ is true God and true man whose sacrifice could not have effected a true reconciliation between God and Man unless He was truly both. He is God from God, true Light from true Light.

St. Francis de Sales, pray for SK. Lead him away from the wide road and on to the narrow one. Lead him into the Catholic Faith.

Blessed Mother, Queen of Peace and Queen of Truth, petition your Son now for the glory of the true faith to be seen by SK. Amen.

In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit...

John Pacheco