New World Translation: yea, or nay?

[InChrist]

Here is a Hebrew speaking scholar and what he had to say about the NWT:

“In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew. . . . Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.” Professor Benjamin Kedar Director of the Institute of Advanced Studies at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Below is an interesting link where you can go and read about various scholars and their qualifications and views on the NWT.

[FONT=&quot]The New World Translation[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What the Scholars Really Said[/FONT]
URL Not Found - (Error 404)




:IS THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS BIBLE, THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION, A GOOD TRANSLATION?
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is known as a religion that denies the Deity of Jesus Christ. To this end, when they produced their own translation of the Bible (The New World Translation), they went to great lengths to make it appear that the Scriptures do not support the idea that Jesus Christ is God (Jehovah). In an attempt to shift the emphasis off of Jesus Christ as God, they inserted the derivation “Jehovah” (an adaptation from the original Hebrew “YHWH” for God’s Name) in place of theos (God) and Kurios (Lord) in multiple verses in the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament). Thus, they created a distinction between Jehovah God and Jesus Christ that is not warranted in the text. In addition to inserting God’s Name where it is not supported by the text, they have also mistranslated many verses that support the Deity of Jesus Christ to justify their own anti-Trinitarian dogma. The following list (prepared by Life After Watchtower Support Ministries) provides a record of the verses where the Watchtower Society’s anti-Trinitarian bias can be seen in their New World Translation. We encourage readers to verify these errors with any Greek/English Interlinear, including the Kingdom Interlinear Translationof the Greek Scriptures published by the Watchtower Society.

Excerpt from: Jehovah's Witness Bible Translation Examined | Jehovah's Witness Beliefs Exposed
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Pegg]

Below is an interesting link where you can go and read about various scholars and their qualifications and views on the NWT.

Thus, they created a distinction between Jehovah God and Jesus Christ that is not warranted in the text. In addition to inserting God’s Name where it is not supported by the text, they have also mistranslated many verses that support the Deity of Jesus Christ to justify their own anti-Trinitarian dogma. The following list (prepared by Life After Watchtower Support Ministries) provides a record of the verses where the Watchtower Society’s anti-Trinitarian bias can be seen in their New World Translation.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Im glad you highlighted why many scholars are opposed to the NWT bible. We are fiercely proud of the fact that we are anti trinitarian. all our publications highlight this fact because we worship Jehovah, not Jesus.



Hebrew scholars like our tranlsation, even if they dont like our use of the name Jehovah, because it recognizes the Almighty Yahweh as God alone. We do not accept that Jesus was God. We believe as the bible states, that Jesus was a SON of God and not God himself.

Our bible is translated in such a way to differentiate between God and Jesus.

 

[InChrist]

Im glad you highlighted why many scholars are opposed to the NWT bible. We are fiercely proud of the fact that we are anti trinitarian. all our publications highlight this fact because we worship Jehovah, not Jesus.

I don’t think that kind of pride is such a good thing according to the scriptures.


And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” Mark 7:30-23

Hebrew scholars like our tranlsation, even if they dont like our use of the name Jehovah, because it recognizes the Almighty Yahweh as God alone. We do not accept that Jesus was God. We believe as the bible states, that Jesus was a SON of God and not God himself.

Our bible is translated in such a way to differentiate between God and Jesus.

[/quote]








It makes sense that the Watchtower would have a different Bible because they have a different Jesus than the real One. I believe Jesus is God and worship Him because His name is above all names and there is no other name by which a person may be saved.






In whose name should we meet together ?
( Matt. 18:20, 1 Cor. 5:4 )


Demons are subject to whose name ?
( Luke 10:17, Acts 16:18 )


Repentance and forgiveness should be preached in whose name ?
( Luke 24:47 )


In whose name are you to believe and recieve the forgiveness of sins ?
( John 1:12, 3:16, Acts 10: 43, 1 John 3: 23, 5: 13 )


By whose name and no other , do we obtain salvation ?
( Acts 4: 12 )


Whose name should be invoked as we bring our petitions to God in prayer ?
( John 14:13, 14 ; 15:16 ; 16: 23,24 )


In whose name is the Holy Spirit sent ?
( John 14: 26 )


Whose name and authority was invoked by the disciples in healing the sick and lame ?
( Acts 3: 16; 4: 7-10, 30 )


Whose name did Paul tell us to call upon ?
( 1 Cor. 1: 2 )


Whose name was Paul willing to die for?
(Acts 21:13)


Whose name is above every name ?
( Eph. 1: 21, Philippians 2: 9-11 )


Whose witnesses are we called to be ?
( Acts 1: 8 )

 

[Thief]

Not wanting to distract...but several people here seem to know more than average....something about text.

While sitting in a hospital I found a copy that had no mark front or back.
The name of Moses did not appear....nor the title ....Genesis...

Chapter Two begins declaring to be a 'retelling of Chapter One'.

Can't say this is good.
Too much removed.
And Chapter Two is NOT a retelling of Chapter One.

Anyone have a clue what that was about?
Such a rework....and no one taking credit.

 

[Pegg]

I don’t think that kind of pride is such a good thing according to the scriptures.


And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” Mark 7:30-23

Some things are worth taking pride in. Psalm 34:2 "In Jehovah my soul will make its boast; The meek ones will hear and will rejoice"

It makes sense that the Watchtower would have a different Bible because they have a different Jesus than the real One. I believe Jesus is God and worship Him because His name is above all names and there is no other name by which a person may be saved.

In whose name should we meet together ?
( Matt. 18:20, 1 Cor. 5:4 )


Demons are subject to whose name ?
( Luke 10:17, Acts 16:18 )


Repentance and forgiveness should be preached in whose name ?
( Luke 24:47 )


In whose name are you to believe and recieve the forgiveness of sins ?
( John 1:12, 3:16, Acts 10: 43, 1 John 3: 23, 5: 13 )


By whose name and no other , do we obtain salvation ?
( Acts 4: 12 )


Whose name should be invoked as we bring our petitions to God in prayer ?
( John 14:13, 14 ; 15:16 ; 16: 23,24 )


In whose name is the Holy Spirit sent ?
( John 14: 26 )


Whose name and authority was invoked by the disciples in healing the sick and lame ?
( Acts 3: 16; 4: 7-10, 30 )


Whose name did Paul tell us to call upon ?
( 1 Cor. 1: 2 )


Whose name was Paul willing to die for?
(Acts 21:13)


Whose name is above every name ?
( Eph. 1: 21, Philippians 2: 9-11 )


Whose witnesses are we called to be ?
( Acts 1: 8 )

NASV John 15:16"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. "

Jesus authority comes from above.

 

[Pegg]

Anyone have a clue what that was about?
Such a rework....and no one taking credit.

sorry, i have no idea.

Do you mean that the front cover and the inside preface pages had not information on them?

 

[Thief]

sorry, i have no idea.

Do you mean that the front cover and the inside preface pages had not information on them?

Right....no title...no author....just text.

The intent seemed clear though.
To have the reader see the story of Man's creation with Adam raised from the dust, as if by magic.

 

[InChrist]

Some things are worth taking pride in. Psalm 34:2 "In Jehovah my soul will make its boast; The meek ones will hear and will rejoice"




NASV John 15:16"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. "

Jesus authority comes from above.

[FONT=&quot]Jesus spoke many words while on earth which acknowledged God the Father’s authority because He was in the flesh speaking from the position of His human nature. He chose to put Himself in this position for our sake. That He acknowledged and honored God His Father does not disprove His deity.
[/FONT]

 

[Pegg]

[FONT=&quot]Jesus spoke many words while on earth which acknowledged God the Father’s authority because He was in the flesh speaking from the position of His human nature. He chose to put Himself in this position for our sake. That He acknowledged and honored God His Father does not disprove His deity.
[/FONT]

like all spiritual beings, Jesus was certainly divine and we recognize him as divine just as we recognize the angel Gabriel as a divine being. But we also recognize that Jesus stands 'beside' the Father in heaven....so it does not seem possible to us that he can be the Father himself.

add to the fact that he said 'the Father is greater then I am' and "I do not speak of my own originality" and "what i teach is not mine but belongs to him that sent me" and "I said I am Gods son" and many other expressions like these which paint a very different picture.

 

[InChrist]

like all spiritual beings, Jesus was certainly divine and we recognize him as divine just as we recognize the angel Gabriel as a divine being. But we also recognize that Jesus stands 'beside' the Father in heaven....so it does not seem possible to us that he can be the Father himself.

add to the fact that he said 'the Father is greater then I am' and "I do not speak of my own originality" and "what i teach is not mine but belongs to him that sent me" and "I said I am Gods son" and many other expressions like these which paint a very different picture.

[FONT=&quot] I can understand your perspective because for a long time I was adamantly opposed to the idea or doctrine of the Trinity. Not only did it not make sense to me, but I thought it was a ridiculous concept. But that changed the moment I was saved and delivered from religious ideas and philosophies of men into a real relationship with the Savior Jesus Christ, My eyes were opened as John Newton expressed in the well-known hymn, Amazing Grace and as the scripture also expresses. At that moment I knew without a doubt that Jesus Christ had to be God. Only God could be or can be the SAVIOR.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. 2 Cor. 4:3-5[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As I said previously, while the Son of God (Jesus) was on earth and in the flesh He always used words and expressions which gave glory and honor to His Father in Heaven. This does not take away from His Godhood any more than my son honoring me takes away from his personhood. I believe the Watchtower gives a distorted view of the Triune nature of God and the views they present are ridiculous, false and not worth believing. The Biblical view makes sense.

I don't expect you to agree, but this is my experience and perspective.
[/FONT]

 

[Pegg]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As I said previously, while the Son of God (Jesus) was on earth and in the flesh He always used words and expressions which gave glory and honor to His Father in Heaven. This does not take away from His Godhood any more than my son honoring me takes away from his personhood. I believe the Watchtower gives a distorted view of the Triune nature of God and the views they present are ridiculous, false and not worth believing. The Biblical view makes sense.

I don't expect you to agree, but this is my experience and perspective.
[/FONT]

i appreciate your opinion and agree with you that the WT does present a completely different view with regard to the trinity. We simply dont believe in it and therefore we teach that Jesus is himself an individual sent by the Almighty God Jehovah or Yaweh, who is the One God of the Hebrew scriptures.

To us, the bibles description of Jesus being the 'son' of God is how we determine his nature. To be a 'son' means that Jesus has been created by God. God is eternal, but no created being can be eternal therefore they must be separate entities.

But like yourself, we certainly view Jesus as our savior....just as the Isrealites were led out of Egypt by the hand of Moses, God was their savior but Moses was the one whom God used for the work. Jesus is the one God uses for the work of saving mankind from sin and death. Jesus is our savior, but only by Gods grace, therefore God is the one to whom we worship.

 

[InChrist]

i appreciate your opinion and agree with you that the WT does present a completely different view with regard to the trinity. We simply dont believe in it and therefore we teach that Jesus is himself an individual sent by the Almighty God Jehovah or Yaweh, who is the One God of the Hebrew scriptures.

To us, the bibles description of Jesus being the 'son' of God is how we determine his nature. To be a 'son' means that Jesus has been created by God. God is eternal, but no created being can be eternal therefore they must be separate entities.

But like yourself, we certainly view Jesus as our savior....just as the Isrealites were led out of Egypt by the hand of Moses, God was their savior but Moses was the one whom God used for the work. Jesus is the one God uses for the work of saving mankind from sin and death. Jesus is our savior, but only by Gods grace, therefore God is the one to whom we worship.

[FONT=&quot]Because the scriptures say that “God is love” (1 John 4:8 and 16), I believe in the triune nature of God. Since God is eternal then God’s love must be eternal. Isn’t it true that the Biblical kind of (agape) love is unselfish and serving, rather than self-centered?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Who did God love in the eternal past (before any creation), if He was alone?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How could His love be expressed in the scriptural (agape) sense if He had only Himself to love?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I don’t believe the term “son” necessarily means to be created when in the context of God. I believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have eternally existed, loved, served, communed, counseled, and have always shared fellowship one with another other. I do not see the scriptures presenting the Son as a created being, rather He is the eternal Son who became flesh for our sake because only God personally can forgive sin and could accomplish what needed to do so.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Though we clearly seem to disagree on this subject it is interesting to discuss and I appreciate your commitment to what you believe to be true.[/FONT]

 

[Pegg]

[FONT=&quot]Because the scriptures say that “God is love” (1 John 4:8 and 16), I believe in the triune nature of God. Since God is eternal then God’s love must be eternal. Isn’t it true that the Biblical kind of (agape) love is unselfish and serving, rather than self-centered?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Who did God love in the eternal past (before any creation), if He was alone?

That is an interesting question. I agree with you that the bible agape love is unselfsih and serving...its a love based on principle. Perhaps you know there are 4 different greek words for the 4 different types of love. They are éros which describes romantic love, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]storgé[/FONT] which is love[FONT=&quot] between the family members, philía conveyed the idea of affection felt for friends such as a fondness or attachment due to mutual attraction of personalities. But Agape (as God is described as being) is the love that is based on principle and that results from the deliberate exercise of one’s judgment and will, a love free from selfish interests.

If God was being described as 'philia', then I might naturally conclude that he must have always expressed his love to someone... but he is described by John as 'agape' which makes a huge difference.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How could His love be expressed in the scriptural (agape) sense if He had only Himself to love?[/FONT]

Agape is explained well here:
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says: “Love can be known only from the actions it prompts. God’s love is seen in the gift of His Son, I John 4:9, 10. But obviously this is not the love of complacency, or affection, that is, it was not drawn out by any excellency in its objects, Rom. 5:8. It was an exercise of the Divine will in deliberate choice, made without assignable cause save that which lies in the nature of God Himself, cp. Deut. 7:7, 8.”—1981, Vol. 3, p. 21.

Notice how Agape is love guided by principle...God didnt send his son to die for people who loved him but rather for people who didnt love him. That is why Agape is primarily a principle based love....it isnt governed by emotion...its governed by will.

So basically, it does not need to show itself to an individual to be expressed. God could have existed for all eternity without any other beings in existence and he could still be called a God of Love (agape).
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I don’t believe the term “son” necessarily means to be created when in the context of God. I believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have eternally existed, loved, served, communed, counseled, and have always shared fellowship one with another other. I do not see the scriptures presenting the Son as a created being, rather He is the eternal Son who became flesh for our sake because only God personally can forgive sin and could accomplish what needed to do so.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Though we clearly seem to disagree on this subject it is interesting to discuss and I appreciate your commitment to what you believe to be true.[/FONT]

Yes i can understand how the trinity can reduce the need for the son to be a creation, absolutely. However, i'd be interested in how you reason on the following scriptures:

John 1:14 "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth"

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son

1John 4:9 By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him

The Greek word mo‧no‧ge‧nes′ is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents.
Why do you think John is calling Jesus an 'only begotten son'?

Also, i'd like your opinion on this verse. We apply this verse to Christ because to us, he is the only heavenly being who stands beside God and he is also the highest in the heavens above the angels (besides Jehovah of course)

Proverbs 8:22 “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth....27 When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, ...30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31 being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men


And now, just think about Proverbs 8 for a moment... compare it with Johns words about Jesus.
John 1:1
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.
John says that 'all things came into existence through him and for him"...we believe that the master worker spoken of in Prov 8 is Jesus Christ. He was the first of Gods creations according to Proverbs...He was Gods 'only begotten' because all other creations came into existence 'through him' as John says.

This is the only way that Jesus could be an 'only begotten son'.... if God created him, and then Jesus created every other living creation. It makes Jesus the perfect reflection, or image, of the Father... and makes him the sole personal creation of God Almighty... an only begotten son.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on these verses.

 

[InChrist]

That is an interesting question. I agree with you that the bible agape love is unselfsih and serving...its a love based on principle. Perhaps you know there are 4 different greek words for the 4 different types of love. They are éros which describes romantic love, [/font][/size][FONT=&quot]storgé[/FONT] which is love[FONT=&quot] between the family members, philía conveyed the idea of affection felt for friends such as a fondness or attachment due to mutual attraction of personalities. But Agape (as God is described as being) is the love that is based on principle and that results from the deliberate exercise of one’s judgment and will, a love free from selfish interests.

If God was being described as 'philia', then I might naturally conclude that he must have always expressed his love to someone... but he is described by John as 'agape' which makes a huge difference.

[/FONT]


Agape is explained well here:
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says: “Love can be known only from the actions it prompts. God’s love is seen in the gift of His Son, I John 4:9, 10. But obviously this is not the love of complacency, or affection, that is, it was not drawn out by any excellency in its objects, Rom. 5:8. It was an exercise of the Divine will in deliberate choice, made without assignable cause save that which lies in the nature of God Himself, cp. Deut. 7:7, 8.”—1981, Vol. 3, p. 21.

Notice how Agape is love guided by principle...God didnt send his son to die for people who loved him but rather for people who didnt love him. That is why Agape is primarily a principle based love....it isnt governed by emotion...its governed by will.

So basically, it does not need to show itself to an individual to be expressed. God could have existed for all eternity without any other beings in existence and he could still be called a God of Love (agape).

[FONT=&quot]I am sorry for taking so long to respond. I am in the middle of a few projects and activities right now and don’t have too much time to be online. I also find it hard to follow through on responding to too many points at once. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is interesting to me how different people can see or read the same information and yet come to different conclusions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] I certainly do agree that God’s agape type of love is not based on emotion, but on will. I also agree that it was this kind of love which was demonstrated toward humanity by God and it is the kind of love He commands Christians to show others. It is to be shown in any situation and as you said not according to feelings, but a choice made by one’s will to love and serve another. I believe the scriptures portray it as the highest form of love which expresses the essential nature and character of God.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]By its very definition I don’t see how this kind of love can exist in isolation. I see agape love as active (which would require another), not as an abstract or passive principle. This is the reason I believe it has been actively expressed in the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit through eternity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Yes i can understand how the trinity can reduce the need for the son to be a creation, absolutely. However, i'd be interested in how you reason on the following scriptures:

John 1:14 "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth"

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son

1John 4:9 By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him

The Greek word mo‧no‧ge‧nes′ is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents.
Why do you think John is calling Jesus an 'only begotten son'?

[FONT=&quot]In Hebrews 11:17 it says: “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son[/FONT][FONT=&quot].” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Was Isaac Abraham’s only begotten son in the sense that he brought him and no other son into existence? Actually Abraham had many sons including Ishmael who was born prior to Isaac. So when the author of Hebrews calls Isaac Abraham’s “only-begotten son,” he must mean something other than Abraham’s only son. Isaac was unique. He would be the son through whom God’s covenant would be fulfilled. “Only-begotten,” therefore, means “unique,” “chosen,” or “special,” in some sense. The Greek word for “only-begotten” in Hebrews 11:17 is the same word used in John 3:16 and it is this meaning that I believe applies to Jesus, rather than indicating He had a beginning or was created.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Also, i'd like your opinion on this verse. We apply this verse to Christ because to us, he is the only heavenly being who stands beside God and he is also the highest in the heavens above the angels (besides Jehovah of course)

Proverbs 8:22 “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth....27 When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, ...30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31 being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men


And now, just think about Proverbs 8 for a moment... compare it with Johns words about Jesus.
John 1:1
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.
John says that 'all things came into existence through him and for him"...we believe that the master worker spoken of in Prov 8 is Jesus Christ. He was the first of Gods creations according to Proverbs...He was Gods 'only begotten' because all other creations came into existence 'through him' as John says.

This is the only way that Jesus could be an 'only begotten son'.... if God created him, and then Jesus created every other living creation. It makes Jesus the perfect reflection, or image, of the Father... and makes him the sole personal creation of God Almighty... an only begotten son.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on these verses.

[/quote]

[FONT=&quot] Because chapters 1-9 are speaking about God’s wisdom personified and how important it is to get, acquire, or possess wisdom, I believe chapter 8 is also speaking of this same wisdom, rather than the person of Jesus Christ. I do not see any indication that chapter 8 should be taken to have a different meaning than chapters 1-7 and 9. That would be to take this verse and/or Chapter 8 out of context.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] I have noticed that the Greek word “qanah” used in verse 22 is not the same Greek word (bara) used in Genesis 1:1, 1:21,1:27, 2:3, 2:4, 5:1,5:2, 6:7 or in Isaiah 43:1, 43:7,45:12, 45:18, 48:7.where the text is speaking of God creating the heavens and the earth and individuals.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The word “qanah” is used elsewhere in Genesis, but not to show the creation of something or someone. Instead, it is translated as “possessor” or “bought” to show ownership. (Gen.14:19, 14:22, 33:19, 47:20, 47:23, 49:30)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The Hebrew word “asah”, translated- to do, work, make, produce, is not used in Proverbs 8:22[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] This indicates to me that verses 22-31 are speaking metaphorically of God’s wisdom (His possession as a part of His divine nature), which He has had eternally (verse 23), and which was brought forth (verse 24) to be used in the creation of the universe.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I just don’t see this referring to Jesus Christ being created. The NWT certainly reads much different from the Bible I read and I really don’t accept it as a valid translation, especially John 1:1 “a god”.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As I said before, I find discussing spiritual matters very interesting and wish I could spend more time at it. But my time is limited, so if we continue one subject at a time would be easier to keep up with unless the time lapse between post and response doesn’t matter to you. Thanks again for your thought-provoking questions and stimulating conversation.[/FONT]

 

[Protester]

As much as I love the American Standard Version, which uses both beautiful archaic English and the name 'Jehovah,' I am disappointed that it's out of print and no one seems to have it in stock anymore... *grumble grumble*
...

Compared with this:

You know you could just have checked Wikipedia American Standard Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and you would see that it still published. The facsimile of the 1901 Bible by Star is terrible, partly because they put there theology in the middle of the Bible and sometimes the copying isn't that good.

I'm not sure what they did with the 1929 ASV, originally published by Thomas Nelson. It was excellently done by Nelson and companies they farmed out the printing to. If Star makes an exact copy of that without the their doctrines place somewhere inside the ASV, then it should be quite good.

Hmm, the NWT ? have you even looked at how they handled...John 1:1?

As you can see from the above, conservative Baptists,would not recommend The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Nay. The New World Translation is inferior to other translations and it is based on false theology.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Nay. The New World Translation is inferior to other translations and it is based on false theology.

You mean, like, Arianism, as opposed to your mainstream Trinitarian doctrine?

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

You mean, like, Arianism, as opposed to your mainstream Trinitarian doctrine?

Yes. That is what I meant.

 

[Shermana]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14780372/Non-trinitarian-Translations-of-John-11

John 1:1c was being translated as "A god" since the 17th century by scholars. The common notion that the JWs were the first to do so is either honest ignorance or deliberate distorting or avoidance of historical scholarship. The Egyptian Coptic supports the differentiation between the definite and indefinite.

The NWT is actually a very scholarly translation that rivals any of the mainstream. You don't have to be JW to appreciate it's honest accuracy on certain key issues.

And no one takes "Calwell's rule" seriously outside of Trinitarian communities. It doesn't even work on any other verse.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Non trinitarian Translations of John 1:1

John 1:1c was being translated as "A god" since the 17th century by scholars. The common notion that the JWs were the first to do so is either honest ignorance or deliberate distorting or avoidance of historical scholarship. The Egyptian Coptic supports the differentiation between the definite and indefinite.

The NWT is actually a very scholarly translation that rivals any of the mainstream. You don't have to be JW to appreciate it's honest accuracy on certain key issues.

And no one takes "Calwell's rule" seriously outside of Trinitarian communities. It doesn't even work on any other verse.

Even the Tanakh says that Messiah will be God In Isaiah 9:6.