Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Brian2]

I thought you were very patient with him, @Brian2.

At this point I see the OP (and the countless other questions you and others have directed at JW's) as unanswerable, but I would like to thank them and everyone else for participating in this thread.

Yes unfortunately many things remain unanswered with the JWs.
When it comes to John 10 surely Jesus is at least "a god" along with the judges of Psalm 82, and His works testify to that, but that is no reason to want to stone Him according to the Law.
Jesus was saying that He is the Son of God and the way Jesus was saying it showed Him to be claiming to be a son more than anyone else was a son of God. He is the uncreated Son who is one with the Father and is in the Father just as the Father is in Him. But of course you know these things.

From this site: John 10:30 Commentaries: "I and the Father are one."
I get the below commentary:

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
30. I and my Father are one] ‘One’ is neuter in the Greek; not one. Person, but one Substance. There is no ‘My’ in the Greek; I and the Father are one. Christ has just implied that His hand and the Father’s hand are one, which implies that He and the Father are one; and this He now asserts. They are one in power, in will, and in action: this at the very least the words roust mean; the Arian interpretation of mere moral agreement is inadequate. Whether or no Unity of Essence is actually stated here, it is certainly implied, as the Jews see. They would stone Him for making Himself God, which they would not have done had He not asserted or implied that He and the Father were one in Substance, not merely in will. And Christ does not correct them, as assuredly He would have done, had their animosity arisen out of a gross misapprehension of His words. Comp. Revelation 20:6; Revelation 22:3.

From this site: John 10:38 Commentaries: but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."
I get the following:

Between the assertion of ver. 30, "I and my Father are one," and that of this verse, "the works" are introduced - works that are recognized as Divine, "the Father's," but seen and known also to be Christ's own works. Why should they stone him for blasphemy if they have evidence so resistless as this, even if it comes short of proof, that he is absolutely one with the Father? The intuitive perception of the Divine in Christ is the highest and noblest spiritual experience. His word should be, might be, enough; but, suppose it should fail, miracles, "works," come in to link the Divine Personality of the Speaker with the supreme Father. The works may teach them that he is in the Father, and the Father in him. Not by a flash of light, but by growing intellectual conviction, they must come to a conclusion which the great assertion," I and the Father are one," finally confirms.

 

[cataway]

Yes unfortunately many things remain unanswered with the JWs.
When it comes to John 10 surely Jesus is at least "a god" along with the judges of Psalm 82, and His works testify to that, but that is no reason to want to stone Him according to the Law.
Jesus was saying that He is the Son of God and the way Jesus was saying it showed Him to be claiming to be a son more than anyone else was a son of God. He is the uncreated Son who is one with the Father and is in the Father just as the Father is in Him. But of course you know these things.

From this site: John 10:30 Commentaries: "I and the Father are one."
I get the below commentary:

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
30. I and my Father are one] ‘One’ is neuter in the Greek; not one. Person, but one Substance. There is no ‘My’ in the Greek; I and the Father are one. Christ has just implied that His hand and the Father’s hand are one, which implies that He and the Father are one; and this He now asserts. They are one in power, in will, and in action: this at the very least the words roust mean; the Arian interpretation of mere moral agreement is inadequate. Whether or no Unity of Essence is actually stated here, it is certainly implied, as the Jews see. They would stone Him for making Himself God, which they would not have done had He not asserted or implied that He and the Father were one in Substance, not merely in will. And Christ does not correct them, as assuredly He would have done, had their animosity arisen out of a gross misapprehension of His words. Comp. Revelation 20:6; Revelation 22:3.

From this site: John 10:38 Commentaries: but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."
I get the following:

Between the assertion of ver. 30, "I and my Father are one," and that of this verse, "the works" are introduced - works that are recognized as Divine, "the Father's," but seen and known also to be Christ's own works. Why should they stone him for blasphemy if they have evidence so resistless as this, even if it comes short of proof, that he is absolutely one with the Father? The intuitive perception of the Divine in Christ is the highest and noblest spiritual experience. His word should be, might be, enough; but, suppose it should fail, miracles, "works," come in to link the Divine Personality of the Speaker with the supreme Father. The works may teach them that he is in the Father, and the Father in him. Not by a flash of light, but by growing intellectual conviction, they must come to a conclusion which the great assertion," I and the Father are one," finally confirms.

if all there was ,was "I and my Father are one," you might have some thing. however, its not so cut and clear, when we continue to read, it reads “May they be one as we are one.” John 17:22
did all the apostle's mystically be come one person ?? no that did not happen. its even silly to think that could happen . what did happen is that they stayed in agreement and worked to the same goal.

 

[Brian2]

if all there was ,was "I and my Father are one," you might have some thing. however, its not so cut and clear, when we continue to read, it reads “May they be one as we are one.” John 17:22
did all the apostle's mystically be come one person ?? no that did not happen. its even silly to think that could happen . what did happen is that they stayed in agreement and worked to the same goal.

John 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Christians are one so that we may be brought to complete unity. Being one does not mean we are in complete unity already.
And yes the apostles and all Christians mystically became one body of Christ all united to Christ as the head and to each other as parts of that one body of Christ.
1Cor 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit (or in the Spirit).

I guess you do not receive much teaching about these things as a JW since it is only the anointed class who are seen as being the body of Christ even though the Bible does not divide up believers like that, but teaches that all Christians are one and are in Christ and part of His body.
Jesus prayer above is for all who believe in the message of the apostles as highlighted.

 

[Oeste]

Your improper use of "disclaim" (which simply means "deny") as being synonymous with "did not claim" is where I gave up before (where you "brushed off" my answer with a falsity).

We have to consider the context Tigger. Let’s remember the charge levied by the crowd:

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

It is this specific charge that is made against Jesus, it is this specific charge that Jesus responds to, and it is this specific charge that the WT article is addressing. And what does the WT tell us? It tells us, very specifically, that Jesus did not claim to be God or “a god”. That’s a disclaimer Tigger. It’s a denial of the charge levied against him.

Jesus never literally says (actual words spoken by him) that he is or is not 'a god.'

I couldn’t agree with you more!

This is your view, this is my view, but it’s not the Watchtower’s. They mix interpretation with scripture:

66 Jesus told those who wanted to stone him that he had not claimed to be God or a god, even though Psalm 82:6 had called some men, some Israelite judges, “gods.”​

They take their interpretation and place it into the mouth of Jesus. Now Jesus has told the crowd exactly what the WT believes he should have said all along.

Thus he never claimed to be "a god" (and he never claimed not to be "a god") The implied meaning of his words and his actions 'speak' for him...

First, I disagree with this interpretation but I find it completely preferable to what is written in the WT article. Had the WT used the words "implied to the crowd" or "inferred to the crowd" rather than "told the crowd" it would take a lot of steam out of my argument.

Second, your response clearly separated your interpretation from any actual scripture. This is something the WT article fails to do.

Third, I would like to thank you for a reasoned (but disagreeable) response.

...(that, according to scripture itself, he could be called 'a god').

Grammatically perhaps, but contextually unlikely. Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 and when we look at the surrounding context:

5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken

6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.” NIV​

If Jesus is 'a god" then he knows nothing, understands nothing and walks in darkness.

If this makes the 60-year old statement by a WT writer false, so be it. JW's understand that the "claim" was understood, not literally spoken.

You understand this but I seriously doubt the vast majority of JW's do. They will not change their mind until the WT changes it for them.

My understanding: There was a time when those considered part of the "faithful discreet slave" were tasked with providing "meat in due season". According to Franz, the actual amount of meat (input) was negligible, but if it was negligible before it is non-existent now.

Since October 2012 the self described uninspired Governing Board took away what little food the FDS had, forming a super FDS within the FDS. It was Governing Board's inability to sanction any reasonable argument put forth by the FDS or the few Greek scholars within the Witness organization that led Stafford to leave the Organization and form the Christian Witnesses of Jah.

 

[YoursTrue]

This has been previously shown to not be the case. In fact, the lack of a definite article shows that both instances of theos in the passage indicate God Almighty.

Let me ask you this, and then perhaps hopefully another time I'll get more into the articles at John 1:1. Here is a scripture I was reading today, and wonder what you think about it:
(New King James Version) 1 John 5:1
"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him."

The translators show two "him's" capitalized, and one not. Why do you think that is?

 

[YoursTrue]

Oeste wrote:
"This makes the entire sentence clear and unambiguous @tigger2. The Watchtower goes beyond the actual statement and creates an imaginary conversation between Jesus and the stone wielding crowd; a false narrative where he tells them he is neither God or a god... a discussion we find nowhere in scripture.

"This is bad enough, but the dilemma has not gone away. If we are to believe the WT, the apostle John tells us Jesus is 'a god' at John 1:1 but Jesus himself tells the crowd he never claimed to be God or 'a god' at John 10:33!"
............................

Your improper use of "disclaim" (which simply means "deny") as being synonymous with "did not claim" is where I gave up before (where you "brushed off" my answer with a falsity).

Jesus never literally says (actual words spoken by him) that he is or is not 'a god.' Thus he never claimed to be "a god" (and he never claimed not to be "a god") The implied meaning of his words and his actions 'speak' for him (that, according to scripture itself, he could be called 'a god').

Good point. On a related note, I asked sojourner about the use of 'Him' with a capital letter and the use of 'him' with a lowercase 'h'. (1 John 5:1.)

New King James Version
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.

 

[cataway]

If you were. God and you had a son would you also be a god? Your father is human are you also human?

 

[YoursTrue]

If you were. God and you had a son would you also be a god? Your father is human are you also human?

On a similar note, if a baby was human, would he be 'a' human? How about his parent? Would he also be a human?

 

[Oeste]

If you were. God and you had a son would you also be a god? Your father is human are you also human?

Good question @cataway!

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (all other sons are made). Do you agree?

So:

1. The only begotten son of Frog is Frog.
2. The only begotten son of Dog is Dog.
3. The only begotten son of Man is Man.
4. The only begotten son of God is ____?​

Can you provide an answer to #4, and a reasonable, consistent and logical basis that supports your response?

 

[Clear]

Hi @Brian2 I like several of your points. However I wanted to make a very specific point regarding this quote of John 17:23

John 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me..

This quote/ translation is incorrect. The source greek is "ινα ωσιν τετειωμενοι" which is "that they may be "mature", "perfected", "complete", "proper", etc.". The authentic phrase says nothing of "complete unity".

I very much agree that the early saints were to be unified and unity was taught among them and it was a profoundly important base principle, thus my point is NOT that unity is not part of perfection or maturity (the prior phrases do refer to "unity"), but simply that this specific phrase in it's authentic form does not refer to "complete unity" in any source greek and thus the translation of this specific phrase is incorrect. (I don't know what translation you are using).



I hope your journey is good Brian2 and I like many, many of your points.

Clear
νεσιτζειω

 

[TiggerII]

Good question @cataway!

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (all other sons are made). Do you agree?

So:

1. The only begotten son of Frog is Frog.
2. The only begotten son of Dog is Dog.
3. The only begotten son of Man is Man.
4. The only begotten son of God is ____?​

Can you provide an answer to #4, and a reasonable, consistent and logical basis that supports your response?

God begets God - "Begotten" and "created" are English words carefully chosen by Bible translators to convey the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words of the scripture texts as closely as possible. So first we should determine what the words "created" and "begotten" actually mean in English. The Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1963 ed. that I have at home says:


"create ... 1: to bring into existence...3 : cause, make" - p. 195. And beget ... begot ... begotten ... 1 : to procreate as the father : sire 2 : cause" - p. 77.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company:

be·get
1. To father; sire.
2. To cause to exist or occur; produce

The Hebrew word yalad means "to bear, bring forth, beget"- Gesenius, #3205, but it can be used (as the equivalent English word also can) for "cause to be." For example, when God says he "begot"/"fathered" (yalad) the nation of Israel (Deut. 32:6, 18), he clearly means that he caused it to be as a nation.

"You forsook the creator who begot [yalad] you and ceased to care for God who brought you to birth." - Deut. 32:18, NEB.

In Ps. 90:2 we also see yalad used in the sense of created:

"Before the mountains were born [yalad] or you brought forth the earth" - NIV, AT, JB, NJB, NAB (1991), NASB; "begotten" - NAB (1970); "were given birth" - MLB. Or, "Before the mountains were created, before the earth was formed." - Living Bible, cf. TEV. So, the Hebrew word most often translated "begotten, brought forth" may also be understood (as in English) to mean created or produced.

Dr. Williston Walker writes in his classic work, A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed.:

"Christian thought had early learned to express its monotheistic stance by insisting that God is the sole agennetos ('underived,' 'ungenerated' ['unbegotten']): that is, the unique and absolute first principle. By contrast with God, all else that exists - including the Logos, God's Son - was described as generated ['begotten']." - p. 132, Charles Scribner's Sons, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1985. [Emphasis and bracketed material added.]

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.) wrote:

"God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after him are created and corruptible {Justin has just concurred that the world itself was begotten by God} .... take your stand on one Unbegotten [the Father], and say this is the Cause of all." - ANF 1:197 ('Dialogue').

But,

"Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten" - ANF 1:170 ('Apology').

Since God has begotten all creation, it should not be surprising to find that the Word was 'begotten' by God and does not mean that he must also be God.

 

[Oeste]

God begets God - "Begotten" and "created" are English words carefully chosen by Bible translators to convey the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words of the scripture texts as closely as possible. So first we should determine what the words "created" and "begotten" actually mean in English.

I agree “God begets God”, which mirrors the Nicene Creed:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father;..."​

However if we take the approach you suggested understand that we are relying solely on the translator’s interpretation and even with the translator’s interpretation we may misunderstand the translator. If the translation is 100,400 or 800 years ago ('begotten' goes back to Jerome and his translation from the Latin Vulgate), then consulting a dictionary may not give us the same word usage as existed during the life of the translator. Thus we run the risk of reverse engineering foreign English definitions into our study of the original text. This may or may not give us the intent of the translator (due to semantic change) much less the original intent from the language of the author.

'Begotten', as used by these earlier Christians does not mean Christ was created or produced (the Creed explicitly states he was NOT made) but that the Father eternally begets (generates) the Son.



But let’ get back to the definitions cited, testing them with a bible verse. We'll use yours from the American Heritage Dictionary:

Defiinition:

be·get
1. To father; sire.
2. To cause to exist or occur; produce

Verse:

“By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [monogenes] son...” (Heb. 11:17 KJV)​

‘To father or sire’ does not work here, because we know Abraham fathered or sired more than one son…Ishmael was the first and Isaac was the second. So if God meant Isaac was the only son Abraham sired then He certainly got His facts wrong which is simply not possible.

Let’s go with the second definition, taking ‘produce’ first. We know Abraham produced more than one son, so Isaac cannot possibly be his only begotten in this sense.

Lastly we come ‘to cause to exist’ and we know that Isaac was not the only son Abraham caused to exist. So while begotten (beget) can certainly mean the things stated here, there must be some other definition for “only begotten” not addressed by the definitions presented so far.

Would you agree?

"Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten" - ANF 1:170 ('Apology').

That certainly was an extremely selective quote. Justin uses 'first-begotten' but he goes on to describe Jesus as God's only begotten (monogenes) Son. In the example above, Ishmael would be Abraham's first begotten, whereas Isaac is his only begotten son.

Since God has begotten all creation, it should not be surprising to find that the Word was 'begotten' by God and does not mean that he must also be God.

"All creation" is not the Son of God. We were discussing the term "only begotten son" and not whether God begat a nation, creation, or something else. So going back to my example:

1. The only begotten son of Frog is Frog.
2. The only begotten son of Dog is Dog.
3. The only begotten son of Man is Man.
4. The only begotten son of God is ____?


1. The only begotten son of Frog will ALWAYS be frog. The son will have the characteristics of a frog. Most importantly, the Son of Frog will be fully frog, and no less amphibian than any other frog.

2. The only begotten Son of Dog will ALWAYS be dog, he will be fully dog and no less canine than his Father.

3. The only begotten Son of Man will ALWAYS be man, he will be fully man and no less human than his Father.

4 The only begotten Son of God will ALWAYS be God, and he will be fully God and no less God than his Father.

This is doubly true given your provided definition of "begotten". A frog does not beget (create, produce, cause to be) a dog as an only begotten son, a dog does not beget a man as an only begotten son, a man does not beget God as an only begotten son, and God does not beget a frog as an only begotten son.

I am using the definitions you provided @tigger2. No other conclusion is possible given the definitions for 'begotten' you provided.

 

[Brian2]

Hi @Brian2 I like several of your points. However I wanted to make a very specific point regarding this quote of John 17:23

John 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

This quote/ translation is incorrect. The source greek is "ινα ωσιν τετειωμενοι" which is "that they may be "mature", "perfected", "complete", "proper", etc.". The authentic phrase says nothing of "complete unity".

I very much agree that the early saints were to be unified and unity was taught among them and it was a profoundly important base principle, thus my point is NOT that unity is not part of perfection or maturity (the prior phrases do refer to "unity"), but simply that this specific phrase in it's authentic form does not refer to "complete unity" in any source greek and thus the translation of this specific phrase is incorrect. (I don't know what translation you are using).

I hope your journey is good Brian2 and I like many, many of your points.

Clear
νεσιτζειω

When I look at biblehub most of the translations there reflect a meaning of unity, but when I look at the Greek in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation for every "one" in the passage (John 17:20-23) is shown as "one(thing)".
John 17:23 I in them and You in Me--that they may be perfectly united, so that the world may know that You sent Me and have loved them just as You have loved Me.
"One(thing)" as the Father and Son are "one(thing)" as it says at the end of verse 22.
Unity is certainly taught here (as the translations show) but unfortunately they seem to miss the point that all believers are "one(thing)" ---the body of Christ imo just as the Father and Son are "one(thing)"----God imo.
These things happen with translations unfortunately.
Being perfected, matured, complete into one (thing) would include being united in thought and action I guess so the translations are pretty right even if they miss the bigger picture.
The NWT seems to have a better translation in regards the "one" but unfortunately this has not translated into an understanding that believers are one(thing) just as the Father and Son are one (thing).

 

[Clear]

Hi @Brian2

I often view the New World Translation as a paraphrase rather than a translation. It's presumed creator, Frederick Franz had no training in koine greek and he made multiple changes to the text that are not something a translation would have, sometimes he got some details right as well. This is one instance. I certainly agree with your main point that unity is part of the "perfection", "completion", "maturing", etc. that the second phrase ("ινα ωσιν τετειωμενοι) in vs 23 implies, and I like this point you made.

Good journey @Brian2

Clear

 

[TiggerII]

Hi @Brian2

I often view the New World Translation as a paraphrase rather than a translation. It's presumed creator, Frederick Franz had no training in koine greek and he made multiple changes to the text that are not something a translation would have, sometimes he got some details right as well. This is one instance. I certainly agree with your main point that unity is part of the "perfection", "completion", "maturing", etc. that the second phrase ("ινα ωσιν τετειωμενοι) in vs 23 implies, and I like this point you made.

Good journey @Brian2

Clear

I think the NWT translators were trying to bring out the difference between the neuter 'one (hen) as used in John 17 and the masculine 'one' (heis).

 

[Brian2]

Hi @Brian2

I often view the New World Translation as a paraphrase rather than a translation. It's presumed creator, Frederick Franz had no training in koine greek and he made multiple changes to the text that are not something a translation would have, sometimes he got some details right as well. This is one instance. I certainly agree with your main point that unity is part of the "perfection", "completion", "maturing", etc. that the second phrase ("ινα ωσιν τετειωμενοι) in vs 23 implies, and I like this point you made.

Good journey @Brian2

Clear

I have heard the story of the creators of the NWT not knowing Greek or Hebrew. I presume they made their translation by looking at other Bible translations and variations in manuscripts and picking out whatever translations suited their purposes and whichever manuscripts suited their purposes whether they were grammatically correct or not and whether they were the most authentic manuscripts or not. This would account for their use of these examples,,,,,,,,,,,no doubt to convince people that what they produced had some degree of scholarship and evidence behind it.
There certainly are some language scholars who agree with much of their translation, even if it is a small minority, but even that is something that people with JW beliefs would be willing to grasp and see as good evidence that the translation is good. And of course it does not help that many main stream translations are less than accurate.
Nevertheless even I, who knows little about the Greek or Hebrew can see glaring errors and bias and inconsistencies in the NWT.

 

[cataway]

I have heard the story of the creators of the NWT not knowing Greek or Hebrew. I presume they made their translation by looking at other Bible translations and variations in manuscripts and picking out whatever translations suited their purposes and whichever manuscripts suited their purposes whether they were grammatically correct or not and whether they were the most authentic manuscripts or not. This would account for their use of these examples,,,,,,,,,,,no doubt to convince people that what they produced had some degree of scholarship and evidence behind it.
There certainly are some language scholars who agree with much of their translation, even if it is a small minority, but even that is something that people with JW beliefs would be willing to grasp and see as good evidence that the translation is good. And of course it does not help that many main stream translations are less than accurate.
Nevertheless even I, who knows little about the Greek or Hebrew can see glaring errors and bias and inconsistencies in the NWT.

Based on his analysis of nine major English translations, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies, wrote: “The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.”
Although the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias on the part of its translators, BeDuhn stated: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”—Truth in Translation, pages 163, 165.

 

[Brian2]

Based on his analysis of nine major English translations, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies, wrote: “The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.”
Although the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias on the part of its translators, BeDuhn stated: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”—Truth in Translation, pages 163, 165.

Yes I know that his book is recommended by the Watch Tower Society. He claims to be unbiased too.
http://livingwater-spain.com/beduhn.pdf
I admit I skipped to the conclusion in the book review of the above site. There is some interesting reading there concerning the unbiased nature of his book. Here is a quote from pages 83-84 of the above review.

However, it is the final clause of this sentence that is perhaps the most revealing of the whole book. It is the final clause of the penultimate sentence of the final paragraph of the appendix. (One might wonder how many readers who have skimmed through the book will have got this far.) First, it expresses the perplexity of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the lack of documentary manuscript evidence to support their claims about the use of the word “Jehovah” in the New Testament: “translators must follow the manuscript tradition as it is currently known, even if some of its characteristics appear to us puzzling”. But the key word in this clause is “us”. Here is the whole of the clause: “even if some of its characteristics appear to us as puzzling, perhaps even inconsistent with what we believe”! It seems to me that BeDuhn here reveals two things: • that he is a Jehovah’s Witness and believes that their claims are right • that his intended audience is other Jehovah’s Witnesses. We must also note precisely the import of what Dr BeDuhn is saying here about the New Testament, which he obliquely calls “the manuscript tradition”: “some of its characteristics appear … inconsistent with what we believe.” In other words, there is a mismatch between what “we” believe and what the New Testament actually says. Simply put, what BeDuhn and his target audience believe is contradicted by the actual New Testament manuscripts that we have. This is a most remarkable admission by Dr BeDuhn. When there is such a contradiction between people’s beliefs and what the New Testament really says, something must give. Those who call themselves Christians should be prepared to change what they believe, to bring it into line with the teaching of the Bible. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has chosen an alternative solution to eliminate the “inconsistency”: they have changed the text of the New Testament to bring it into line with their doctrines. A review of J BeDuhn’s “Truth in Translation” 84 © Trevor R Allin 2020 And in his book Dr BeDuhn has gone to extraordinary lengths to support them in this action, criticising only one detail. He has then done his utmost to bury that criticism as best as possible, while repeatedly describing other obvious errors and mistranslations by them as “accurate”. The importance of this review is that it does not just present a private difference of opinion between the present author and Dr BeDuhn; it is not just my word against his; most of the claims presented by BeDuhn are refuted in this review by reference to the published statements of well-known experts in the fields of linguistics, Koiné Greek and the Biblical texts, many of whom have spent a lifetime researching these subjects and teaching them at some of the most prestigious universities in the world. These detailed references and quotations demonstrate to some extent the virtually world-wide consensus of expert opinion, knowledge and analysis on these matters. It is just not an option to retort that “they are wrong”, the response that the present author received from one Jehovah’s Witness recently.

 

[Dogknox20]

Based on his analysis of nine major English translations, Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies, wrote: “The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.”
Although the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias on the part of its translators, BeDuhn stated: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”—Truth in Translation, pages 163, 165.

The New World Translation (NWT) is produced by the Watch Tower Society, the parent organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs). The New Testament (or “Christian Greek Scriptures,” as they call it) was first produced in 1950, followed by the Old Testament (“Hebrew Scriptures”), produced progressively in five volumes from 1953-1960. Modern versions of the NWT contain the entire Bible in one volume.

The NWT is a travesty of the Scriptures for two main reasons:

First, of the five men who comprised the translation committee–Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel–Franz is the only one who had any knowledge at all of the biblical languages. Franz studied Greek for only two years (not biblical Greek, though), and he was allegedly self-taught in Hebrew. The other four men completely lack any credentials that would qualify them as competent biblical scholars.
Second, the text of the NWT is distorted and twisted in a manner to suit the erroneous beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Numerous examples could be cited. For instance, John 1:1, in the NWT, reads that the Word was ” a god” (rather than “God”) because JWs deny the divinity of Christ. Similarly, in Colossians 1:15-20, the NWT inserts the word “other” into the text four times because JWs believe that Christ was created. Also, in Matthew 26:26, the NWT reads “this means my body” (rather than “this is my body”) because JWs deny the Real Presence.

Reputable Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars alike reject the NWT as being biased, unreliable, and unscholarly. People who open their doors to the JWs ought to be warned that the NWT is not a safe or reliable translation of God’s Word.

 

[Clear]

Hi @tigger2

Tigger2 said : “I think the NWT translators were trying to bring out the difference between the neuter 'one (hen) as used in John 17 and the masculine 'one' (heis).” (post #635)


I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Εις and εν are not both “one” in this context and I don’t understand why Frederick Franz would have been trying to use εις as “one” in this specific case. (Am I misunderstanding your point?)

Εις, in ancient literature was a common preposition that is associated with some sort of change.

For example, it was associated with verbs of motion (i.e. going into a house) or a destination even if metaphorically such as “So, my son, “it’s come to this” (‘εις παν τι’), has it?” It often conveys the idea of a direction or location of an encounter. In the case of John 17:23 it speaks of the progress which was to result in a change in their character (which, this case, was to bring them unity as @Brian2 suggested). In it’s usage of expressing destination is it usually a “progress” that is being expressed, or a transfer or change in value (such as it’s usage in contracts or payments being made). Even when it was used as an expression such as “in the name or place of” (e.g. εις τον χριστος) it expressed the change in authority granted by one with greater authority ( e.g. "I come in the name of the king", etc).

In this specific phrase, I like the symbolism of perfection/maturation as a process of “movement” toward being unified (a progressive change in character and value) which is being expressed.

In any case Tigger2, I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful

Clear