Almost without exception, opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses complain about the main Bible that JWs use and that is the "New World Translation of the Holy Scripture". This translation was produced and published by the "Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society Of Pennsylvania" It is charged that this particular Bible has under gone major word changes to fit the "theology" of JWs, and thus is extremely unreliable as to represent the Word of God. This essay will examine some of those charges. I will use some of the most common texts that are criticised as well as some obscure ones. After researching a lot of this material, I have come to the conclusion that at worst, the NWT is different but not wrong and, at best, is more accurate than some other Bibles.
One objection that is often raised is that sources suggest that there were only 5 members on the Translation Committee, where as some of the other translations have had many scholars working on the translation. But there again there are Bibles that are well accepted that have been the work of only one man. So, the amount of people working on a project does not necessarily make it "better".
It is also often brought to ones attention that none of the NWT committee were what most would call "scholars" because, it is said, none had received any "degrees" in Biblical Greek or Hebrew. It is reported that one member only had ever received any training in Biblical Greek or Hebrew. I can not comment on that as I do not know.
Do those factors make the NWT unreliable? Obviously, opposers of the NWT reply "YES". So it will be up to you, the reader to determine for yourself if that is the case
Some opposers will say that F.W. Franz was one of the members of that committee, (I can not say either way, because, I do not know). It is often reported that he said under oath in a civil court case that he did not speak Hebrew and that he was unable to translate a particular text. This information is widely used and often distorted. Unfortunately, the authors of these reports have not been given full details of what was said in the court case, thus giving a grossly distorted conclusion to their readers.
The case that is referred to is "Douglas Walsh v The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde, M.P.,P.C., as representing the Minister of Labour and National Services, cross-examination of Frederick William Franz, p. 102 (Scotland, 1954)" Bellow is the particular section that is referred to. (Italics Added)
Cross: "You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?"
Franz: "I do not speak Hebrew"
Cross: "You do not "
Franz: "No."
Cross: "Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew. "
Franz: " Which"
Cross: "That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis"
Franz: "You Mean here?"
Cross: "Yes."
Franz: "No. I won't attempt to do that."
This section (or a part of this section) of the court records are often used to support the idea that Franz and the other members of the Translation Committee members did not know Biblical Hebrew or Greek.
There are a couple of points to look at here. First, Franz is asked if he can read and speak Hebrew. He answers that he can not speak it, he does not say that he can not READ it.
Second, the reproductions of this court testimony that I have seen by opponents of the NWT, fail to give the complete answer to his last question. They may miss out the phrase "
I won't attempt to do that." This gives the impression that Franz is simply saying "No" he can not translate Genesis 2:4. Now look at the question again. He is being asked to translate from English into Hebrew (not Hebrew into English as some opponents try to put across). Please note this comment from William Sanford LaSor in "Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, Vol 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 3 "And, frankly, most of us who teach Biblical Hebrew do not have sufficient fluency in the language to speak or write in it"
In the court records of the Cross-examination, p. 7, par. A, Franz had said "that he had made himself familiar with Hebrew, and that he could read and follow the Bible in Hebrew " (Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses defended. P 335). Now remember Franz said he could not speak Hebrew, and most teaches have difficulty in speaking it, then the court record does not show that the translating committee was unable to perform the task of translating the Bible.
Just as a side line here, I was trained and worked as a Public Tax Accountant. This involved giving people business and Tax advice as well as preparing annual Tax Returns for my clients.
In this profession, I had seen highly "qualified"(as in Education and letters after their names) people that were out performed by personnel with no qualifications. It is true, that generally a "qualified person" has more of an idea of a subject. In the end, it was the results of the individuals work that determined how good they were. For me, the same can be said about translation from one language into another.
There are too many English translations for me to have compared, so I have used some of the more common ones that are accepted eg. King James, Revised Standard, New International Version, The Living Bible and Today's English Version to name a few. I do not do direct comparisons as such, I will leave that up to you to compare with your own Bible.
I would like to refer to the preface of a translation to highlight some of the principles that this translator felt was important in a good translation.
PHILLIPS (Modern English Version)
The essentials of translation
…There seem to be three necessary tests which any work of transference from one language to another must pass…. The first is that it must not sound like a translation at all…..the second test: that a translator does his work with the least possible obtrusion of his own personality. The third……a good translator should be able……to produce in the hearts and minds of his readers an effect equivalent to that produced by the author upon the hearts and minds of his readers.
Translation as interpretation
…the translators function is to understand as fully and deeply as possible what the New Testament writers had to say and then, after a process of what might be called reflective digestion, to write it down in the language of the people today.
That above paragraph is, for me, very powerful. Read it again. It appears to be saying, that a good translator (or for that matter any one studying the Bible), must not only look at the word in the sentence where it appears, but the paragraph, chapter and all the other uses of a word to come to as accurate an understanding as possible.
We know that many English words can have more than one meaning. Take for example the word "bow". This word has Five meanings and Two pronunciations that I aware of.
Pronunciation one
(meanings one and two)
1
) It can mean an action one takes in showing courtesy to some one else, (a bending at the waist) we bow down to them. 2) A part of a ship.
Pronunciation two
(meanings three to five)
3
) An instrument with which to shoot arrows. 4) A decorative knot in a ribbon (or string, shoelace) to tie something up with, or, 5) Part of a musical instrument such as a violin.
To understand which meaning is meant we must look at the context. Take this short sentence. "He took a bow." Right away, we would probably rule out a part of a ship. (under normal situations the bow of a ship is too big for some one to take.) Now was he bowing to someone, or holding a decorative knot of some kind. Perhaps he was getting ready to shoot an arrow or maybe play a violin. Only by reading around that sentence will we ever know. The same is true when examining the languages of the Bible.
In both Bible translation, and Bible study, however, we need look not only at the context, but, also at other Scriptures to see how the word is used in different settings. So, you check to see whether one is translating according to knowledge of the word use or leaning on assumptions as to possible renderings, or on the evidence. That is what You have to decide about the NWT.
Perhaps, with out a doubt, in my experience, the single biggest objection that most people have to what the Witnesses believe, and the Bible translation that they use, is the way that the New World Translation translates John 1:1.
Most people are used to seeing "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Where as the NWT says "and the Word was a god". Many religionists feel, that, in rendering the text in this way, it takes the deity away from Jesus.
To start to understand why it is translated like that, lets look at how it was written in the early Greek. Below I have tried to recreate the Greek as printed in The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson as published in 1942. The Greek work is according to Dr J.J. Greisbach with a literal rendering into English directly under each word.
En arch hn
O1 Logos cai O Logos hn proz Ton2 Qeon3 cai qeoz4 hn O Lagos5
In beginning
was the Word and the Word was with THE GOD and god was the Word
The first thing to note is that in the Greek that the Bible was written in, there is no indefinite article. The indefinite article is the word "a". The definite article is the word "the". Look at the difference in the two Greek words for ‘the’. You will notice that they look different. O Ton. Even though these words are the same, they are rendered "slightly different" when translated into English because of the different ways Greek words are used to show what kind of word a word is. The ending of a word can express Gender, Tenses or one of five cases such as Nominative, Vocative, Accusative, Genitive and Dative. You will also notice the same difference in the words used for "God" Qeon, qeoz
Please note the slight differences in the table below of key words used in John 1:1.
1
O Nominative case of the word "The"….. Expressing the doer
2
Ton Accusative case of the word "The" …. Expressing the Object
3
Qeon Accusative case of the word "God" …. Expressing the Object
4
qeoz Nominative case of the word "God"….. Expressing the doer
5
Lagos Nominative case of the word "Word"….. Expressing the doer
To try to explain what that means, let's assume you are going to sit at a table with 8 chairs around it. Assume that everyone has been assigned a seat in which to sit, and you have been assigned the seat at the head of the table. Now you know exactly which chair you have to go to... The chair at the head of the table. Now take the same situation where nobody is assigned a chair, you now have a choice of 8 seats to go to. So, you are going to sit on a chair at the table and not just the chair at the head
So, the word "the" points to a specific item or person where as the word "a" points to one of many.
You will have noticed that the NWT inserts the letter "a". Now the problem that arises is, are they correct in doing so? I will attempt to explain this by looking at the sentence construction, as well as seeing how it fits into the context of the chapter.
Is It Grammar or Interpretation?
WHEN translating the "New Testament" from its original Greek into any modern tongue there are terms that can be rendered in more than one way. How shall the right translation be determined? In such cases, obviously something other than Greek grammar determines what wording the modern scholar will use in translating the original.
This rendering is strongly criticised by some, since it appears to make the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) a lesser god and not God Almighty himself. These critics often appeal to Greek grammar to try to dislodge this latter rendering.
Thus one theologian says regarding the New World Translation handling of this verse: "It overlooks entirely an establishedrule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, ‘. . . and the Word was God.’" Another comments that the translation "a god" is "erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship . . . rejected by all recognised scholars of the Greek language." And yet another notes that it shows "ignorance of Greek grammar."—Italics added.
I found the following information that I thought was interesting, especially since it comes from a work that supports the trinitarian way of rendering John 1:1
Regarding the use of articles, Ray Summers states on page 129 in "Essentials of New Testament Greek":
"The Greek had no indefinite article. The words tis and eis many times are close to the English use of the indefinite article "a" and "an." The Greek definite article o, h, to was much used and is tremendous importance in the interpretation of the the New Testament. ... The basic function of the Greek article is to identify. At this point an important differentiation should be observed. When the article is used with a construction, the thing emphasized is "identity"; when the article is not used, the thing emphasized is quality of character. ...The difference is clearly seen in the use of o theos and theos. o theos is used of the divine Person "God." theos is used (generally) of the divine character or essence of God. Thus "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (ton theon) and the Word was divine (theos)" gives the sense. ... An extensive discussion of this usage is found in Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament." ( I will discuss the use of "divine" later on.)
Concerning articles, Spiros Zodhiates on pages 862 and 863 of The Complete Word Study New Testament with Parallel Greek states: (next page)
5. Anarthrous (an) refers to a word or group of words which appear without a definite article (o,e, to, the). Greek has no indefinite article "a" or "an" in English. Sometimes it is best to translate an anarthrous word by supplying "a" or "an" before it. In fact, due to reasons of English style or Greek idiom, the word "the" is even an appropriate translation in some cases. However, there are many times when supplying an article would be incorrect. Anarthrous constructions are most often intended to point out the quality of something.... See also 24. (Italics in this paragraph mine)
24. The Definite Article (art) in Greek is sometimes translated with the English definite article "the." However, the function of the two is quite different. In English, the definite article serves merely to particularize, to refer to a particular object. In Greek, however, it serves to emphasize, in some way, the person or thing it modifies. Hence, in most cases, the definite article in Greek serves to identify: ... The term "articular" refers to a group of words which appear with a definite article ... The is perhaps no other part of Greek grammar where the Greek idiom differs so greatly from the English. For instance, an English grammarian would never place the definite article before a proper noun (e.g., the "Thomas"), though in Greek it is very common. Recognizing the significance of the presence or absence of the definite article requires the most intimate knowledge of the Greek language. Contrast the use of articular constructions with anarthrous constructions which refers to quality. ..."
I found it interesting that a person would include those quotes to support the trinitartian idea especially with these words included "
The difference is clearly seen in the use of o theos and theos. o theos is used of the divine Person "God." theos is used (generally) of the divine character or essence of God. Thus "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (ton theon) and the Word was divine (theos)" gives the sense. ..."and "However, there are many times when supplying an article would be incorrect. Anarthrous constructions are most often intended to point out the quality of something...." as well as "Contrast the use of articular constructions with anarthrous constructions which refers to quality. ..." This last quote says what we say, and that is that "god was the word" shows a quality or "nature" of Jesus.
In regard to this, please note the following quote from Appendix 6A in the NWT study Bible
Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb (Just as in John 1:1) with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns:
Scripture Text
Colour Coded
MARK
l NWT JKV NIV AAT RSV TEV
Mr 6:49
| an apparition a spirit a ghost a ghost a ghost a ghost
Mr 11:32
| a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a real prophet a prophet
JOHN
|
Joh 4:19
| a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet
Joh 6:70
| a slanderer a devil an informer a devil a devil a devil
Joh 8:44
| a manslayer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer
Joh 8:44
| a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar
Joh 9:17
| a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet
Joh 10:1
| a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief
Joh 10:13
| a hired man an hireling a hired man a hired hand a hireling a hired man
Joh 10:33
| a man a man a mere man a mere man a man a man
Joh 12:6
| a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief
Does the above table not show that other translators will use that particular grammar occurrence in the same as the NWT uses it at John 1:1. May I ask, who is being consistent?
In the experience that I have had with Trinitarians, reference has often been made to a rule of Greek grammar formulated by E. C. Colwell. There are other scholars that comment on this passage, but Colwell's rule is the one that has been shown to me on several occasions. Usually the rule that was quoted to me, comes from a Book entitled "The Kingdom of The Cults" by Walter Martin. He puts Cowells rule this way in the book. "Cowells rule clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (Theos - God) never takes an article when it precedes the verb (was) as in John 1:1" Kingdom of the cults 1975, 75. Mr Martain goes on to say, "There can be no direct object following was since according to grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer bach to the subject, in this case word (Logos)". I have had this pointed out to me to show that the "Word"(logos) is directly related to Ho Theos. Interesting to note that JWs do not say that a direct object follows was. For me that makes Mr Martins assertions invalid.
But the Question still has to be asked, Does his rule (Colwell's) really prove their point? Consider what Colwell himself has actually said.
In 1933, he published an article in the
Journal of Biblical Literature entitled: "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." Toward the close of his article he discusses John 1:1. The latter part of this verse reads literally in the Greek: "AND GOD WAS THE WORD." Notice that a definite article "THE" appears before "WORD," while no "THE" appears before "GOD." Colwell’s rule regarding translation of the Greek says: "A definite predicate nominative [for example, "GOD" at John 1:1] has the article ["THE"] when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb." In other words, if always true, the rule says that at John 1:1 a "THE" before "GOD" is implied in the original language and should therefore appear in modern translations.
His rule appears to be true in some places in the Greek Bible. However, Colwell himself admitted that there are exceptions to the rule, that it is not absolute. (See, for instance, an interlinear rendering of Luke 20:33; 1 Corinthians 9:1, 2.) In fact, there appear to be so many exceptions that thirty years after his rule was formed, one Greek grammar book says that the rule may only reflect a "general tendency." Well, then, what about John 1:1? Would the rule apply there?
Colwell himself answers: "The predicate ["GOD"] . . . is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it." Notice, not any inviolable "rule," but
context is the crucial factor.
So in spite of the strong, assertive language on the part of some, Colwell’s "rule" of itself or other rules do not ‘necessitate’ one rendering over another at John 1:1. Rather, how the translator interprets the surrounding verses and, indeed, the rest of the Bible—this is what would determine how he translates John 1:1.
Now take notice of the context of the chapter John 1- 4 This rendering comes from the New World Translation , but take notice of the highlighted words and check them in other versions "1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was withGod, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning withGod. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men."
Also note John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. " All the words that are in italics and underlined, show that there was more than one individual being talked about here. (In my discussions with Trinitarians, it amazes me as to how many do not comprehend these words and their significance). This is further verified by Col 1:15-17. "15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist " (I discuss Col 1:15-17 further down the page as many people object to the insertion, even in brackets of the word [other])
The [ ] denote words inserted by the New World Translation to complete the sense of the text.
That is why those above-quoted writers are so dogmatic in their statements. To them, Jesus is God himself. One of them refers to "Jesus Christ, who is truly God and truly man." Another observes that "Christ claimed equality with Jehovah." Obviously, given a choice, would they not want John 1:1 translated to give apparent support to their own views?
On the other hand, a person who accepts Jesus’ plain statement that "the Father is greater than I am" will realise that Jesus is not equal to the Almighty Jehovah. (John 14:28) Yet, this does not mean that Jesus cannot be referred to as "god" in some sense of the word. Recall Exodus 4:16; does not Jehovah there say to Mosses, "And thou shalt be to [Aaron] instead of God"? (AV) But this did not make Mosses God Almighty, did it? The term "god" is applied even to the Devil, since he is a mighty creature controlling the existing system of things. (2 Cor. 4:4) Certainly, then, Jesus, who has been exalted over all other creation and granted the exercise of great power in heaven and earth by his Father, can be referred to as "a god." Such a rendering conveys the dignity and respect Jesus is due while at the same time it avoids giving any reader the impression that Jesus is God Almighty himself.
The assumed grammatical "rule" in connection with John 1:1 is only one of many that is appealed to for apparent support of certain religious ideas. But it serves to illustrate the point: the real issue involves more than grammar.
Grammatical rules are necessary to understand a language. But they have limitations. As the
Encyclopedia Americana states: "Everywhere we find grammar working upon a language already made . . . the office of grammar has been, not to fix what a language should be, or must be, but to explain what an already existing language is. Grammar is explanatory and not creative."
Accordingly, even with regard to living languages it should be remembered that, in the last analysis, their ‘grammar’ does not come from ‘grammar books.’ As a professor of English at the University of Chicago notes: "In the usage of native speakers, whatever is, is right." Those who speak a language, especially the ‘better educated’ people—not arbitrary rule makers—ultimately determine what is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect.’
This same principle holds true with regard to the grammar of Biblical Greek. Its purpose is to explain how things are said and not to try to impose on the original language what the modern grammarian thinks
should be said. Such ‘grammar’ must be drawn from what the Biblical Greek text itself actually says. Even other writings in the Greek language, but of a different age or from another part of the world, are of only limited value in arriving at an understanding of the Scriptures. As prominent Greek grammarian A. T. Robertson once put it: "What we wish to know is not what was good Greek at Athens in the days of Pericles, but what was good Greek in Syria and Palestine in the first century A.D." Yes, the Bible’s text itself in particular must reveal what is acceptable in the matter of its grammar.
Thus, the person unschooled in the original Bible languages need not be overawed by those who cite grammatical rules. No rule of grammar will contradict the overall message of the Bible. Similarly, the honest Biblical teacher knows that it is the
text of the Bible that is inspired. Grammatical rule books are not, though they are helpful.
Now lets change a couple of words so as to take the text out of a Biblical setting, but leave the sentence construction the same. Note the following example:
In [the] beginning was the apprentice and the apprentice was with THEBUILDER and builder was the apprentice.
When I look at that sentence I see two individuals mentioned, the builder who is in charge and the apprentice who takes direction from the builder. The word "builder" in lower case letters is what is known as a predicate noun, it describes a quality of the apprentice, he is doing the work of
a builder without being THE BUILDER.
Just as the "builder" in lower case letters is what is known as a predicate noun, it describes a quality of the apprentice, the words "a god" describes a quality of the Logos, so it is also correct to say that the Word was divine or godlike.
Now lets take a moment to consider what the word God means. It is NOT a name but a title to describe a quality of the one with the title.
Among the Hebrew words that are translated "God" is ´El, The New Strongs Concordance links EL (reference number 410) with ELOHEEM (Ref. Nu. 430) and ELOAH (Ref. Nu. 433). The base word El meaning "strength" and or "mighty". Rightly so then, the base for the words translated God means "Mighty One".
To expand on the apprentice and builder further, in the state where I live, (South Australia), when a builder is doing a job, he has to put a sign up saying who he is. Lets call this Builder "Allan Brooks Construction". Now lets assume he builds 100 homes a year. With a large building firm, the person with their name on the sign does all the organising, directing and takes responsibility for a project, but may never actually turn up on the job.. He delegates the work to his workers. Anyone walking past the construction site will see the name of Allan Brooks and will associate that project with that person. Even though Mr Brooks may never show up on that site he is totallyresponsible for the job. If it is good, he gets the praise, and if there are problems, he takes the responsibility for them. Anyone walking past the building site will automatically associate the job with the name on the sign.
If asked, both the workers on the building site, and THE BUILDER (in this case Mr Brooks), can rightly say (or be referred to as the one), that they built a certain house. One for actually doing the work, and the other for PLANNING and ORGANISING the project. In my knowledge of the building industry, if Mr Brook, as the one being totally responsible, was describing to someone else a job that he was responsible for, he can rightly say, that he alone with no one to help did a given project, and his listener would understand the context of his statement.
Now both the builder and his workers can say that they built a certain project. The builder for his INSTIGATING and ORGANISING the project, and the workers who actually did the work. The same principle we can apply to Jesus and his father. Jehovah INSTIGATES and ORGANISES certain actions, (creating, saving, judging) and Jesus carries these through. Both can be said to do the same action. (As a side line here, with reference to the previous paragraph, Jehovah can rightly say as he did in Is. 44:24
"I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?" For more details on this Text see the Trinity Exposed web site)
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
, Vol. XIII, No. 4, October 1951, observed: "Grammar alone cannot prove how the predicate in this verse should be translated, whether ‘God’ or ‘a god.’" And indicating propriety for the rendering "a god,"The New American Bible(1970) in its section "Biblical Terms Explained" says under the word "God": "In Jn 1:1, the Word is called ‘God’ but the original Greek term used here,theos[God], is not the usual word for God, ho theos[the God]."
The truth is, just how John 1:1 should be translated cannot be definitely determined solely by rules of Greek grammar. As Divinity Professor John Martin Creed noted: "The Prologue [John 1:1] is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous [theos without the article ho (the)] than it appears to be in English."
Thus this text alone is inconclusive in identifying whether Jesus is truly "God," or is a subordinate, lesser "god." Do the few other texts where "Jesus is, or might be, alluded to as ‘God’" prove that he is really Almighty God? Some of these will be dealt with later.
Originally, this page finished here, but, due to e-mail that I received, there were many who said that the reasoning's I had presented did not fit the context of such Scriptures as Isaiah 43:10 . Yes I must admit that context involves more than just surrounding texts. The whole Bible must be considered in order to see what God really has imparted to us, so we will consider Isaiahs words in light of what opposers have to say and try to examine the original meanings of that text. Isaiah 43: (RSV) says "Before me no God was formed, nor shall there be any after me"
Also this reasoning has been put forward as to why the way John 1:1 is treated in the NWT . The following quote comes from a paper prepared by Larry Ingram in his discussion on John 1:1 as found on the net
"….To further substantiate point 5 above, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge points out, translators and translations which choose to render this phrase `a god' or `divine' are motivated by theological, not grammatical, considerations. The phrase `a god' is particularly objectionable, because it makes Christ a lesser god, which is polytheism, and contrary to the express declaration of Scripture elsewhere (Deut. 32:39).[This text says as per NWT "SEE now that I—I am he And there are no gods together with me"] For clearly if Christ is `a god,' the he must be either a `true god' or `false god.' If `true,' we assert polytheism; if `false,' he is unworthy of credence."
Larry, along with others also posed the question to me, HOW CAN JESUS CHRIST BE "a god" when even the New World Translation states
, "you are my witnesses, is the utterances of Jehovah, even my servant whom [I] have chosen, in order that you may know and have faith in me, and that you may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. I ----- I am Jehovah and besides me there is no Savior" (Isaiah 43:10, NWT)?
Before we start to examine the CONTEXT of this verse lets see something about what the Hebrew language says about the words "god". It is important to understand the usage of these old words in translating into a modern language. It is also important to recognise the settings. The nation of Israel come out of a land full of false gods (Egypt) and were to take possession of a land where the people worshiped many gods. So the people of Israel were well accustomed to various "gods". With their exit from Egypt they experienced the might of this God of their forefathers, but they were so accustomed to the other gods that He had to keep reminding them as to who he was.
I am going to repeat something I said earlier and then build on it. Most of what is written here is not mine but sourced from other places, and rearranged.
Among the Hebrew words that are translated "God" is ´El, The New Strongs Concordance links EL (reference number 410) with ELOHEEM (Ref. Nu. 430) and ELOAH (Ref. Nu. 433). The base word El meaning "strength" and or "mighty". Rightly so then, the base for the words translated God means "Mighty One". It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the make up of proper names, such as Elisha meaning "God Is Salvation" and Michael ("Who Is Like God?"). In some places ´El appears with the definite article (ha·´El', literally, "the God") with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.-
Ge 46:3; 2Sa 22:31; see NW appendix, p. 1567. At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ´El Gib·bohr', "Mighty God" (not ´El Shad·dai' [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1).
The plural form, ´e·lim', is used when referring to other gods, such as at Exodus 15:11 ("gods"). It is also used as the plural of majesty and excellence, as in
Psalm 89:6: "Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·beneh' ´E·lim']?" That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ´E·lim' by the singular form The·os' in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate.
The Hebrew word ´elo·him' (gods) appears to be from a root meaning "be strong." ´Elo·him' is the plural of ´eloh'ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (
Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ´Elo·him' is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods(singular and plural), and to men.
When applying to Jehovah, ´Elo·him' is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (
Ge 1:1) ( What does the term a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence mean. In English we have a term that closely resembles that and that is what we call the "ROYAL WE". It was used by royalty to refer to them selves. Eg we may have seen old movies about Queen Victoria, and she would often use phrases like "We are not amused". That phrase referred to herself and not the people with her.) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: "That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [´Elo·him'] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God."-The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.
The title ´Elo·him' draws attention to Jehovah's strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (
Ge 1:1-2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces. At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ´elo·him', as is confirmed by Paul's quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called beneh' ha·´Elo·him', "sons of God" (KJ); "sons of the true God" (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: "(individual) divine beings, gods." And page 51 says: "the (single) gods," and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ´elo·him' is rendered "angels" (LXX); "godlike ones" (NW).
The word ´elo·him' is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply "gods." (
Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.-1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 ("goddess" Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).
At
Psalm 82:1, 6, ´elo·him' is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as "God" to Aaron and to Pharaoh.-Ex 4:16
In many places in the Scriptures ´Elo·him' is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (
Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·´Elo·him', F. Zorell says: "In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . 'Jahve is the [one true] God' De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc."-Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.
The Greek Term. The usual Greek equivalent of ´El and ´Elo·him' in the Septuagint translation and the word for "God" or "god" in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·os'.
First, let's deal with the context of the majority of the previous chapters of Isaiah leading up to, and well past the 43 chapter of Isaiah. Upon a close study, we find that these chapters are dealing primarily with the false idol gods the nation of Israel was getting involved with, verses the one True God of Israel, namely Jehovah. Notice that Jehovah says: "....before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none [formed] "
Is it not surprising then, that Jehovah would make a statement as he did at
Isaiah 43:10. Even calling the nation of Israel "witnesses" to his Godship. They witnessed marvellous acts of Jehovah on behalf of his people. Let's look at Isaiah 43:2,3 of the same chapter: "When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you. when you walk through the fire, you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you. For I am Jehovah your God, the Holy One of Israel your Savior. I have given Egypt as a ransom for you, Ethiopia and Se'ba in place of you."
Yes, from Jehovah's standpoint, all the dungy idols of the pagan nations that were surrounding Israel and being brought into the pure worship of Jehovah were something detestable to him. He consistently reminded his people to
"make no graven images" before him. The gods of the nation's time after time proved powerless as compared to Jehovah's awesome demonstrations of the miraculous protection he showed to his people. Yet, Israel continued to be involved in false worship by means of making and worshipping idols.
With this having been said, how is it that ANY god could be formed before or after Jehovah? The fact is, there could NOT be any god formed before or after Jehovah because the gods being mentioned and spoken about that the nation of Israel could identify with were FALSE IDOL GODS! Yes, the "CONTEXT" IS DEALING WITH THE FALSE IDOLS THE NATION OF ISRAEL HAD BEEN INVOLVED WITH! Lets see proof of this.
Isaiah 40:18
reads: "And to whom can YOU people liken God, and what likeness can YOU put alongside him? The craftsman has cast a mere molten image, and with gold the metalworker overlays it, and silver chains he is forging. A certain tree as a contribution, a tree that is not rotten, he chooses. A skillful craftsman he searches out for himself, to prepare a carved image that may not be made to totter."
Isaiah 40:25
reads: "But to whom can YOU people liken me so that I should be made his equal?" says the Holy One."
Isaiah 41:28
reads: "And I kept seeing, and there was not a man; and out of these there was also no one that was giving counsel. And I kept asking them, that they might make a reply. Look! All of them are something nonexistent. Their works are nothing. Their molten images are wind and unreality."
Isaiah 42:17
reads: "They must be turned back, they will be very much ashamed, those who are putting trust in the carved image, those who are saying to a molten image: "YOU are our gods."
Isaiah 44:8,9,10
reads: "Do not be in dread, YOU people, and do not become stupefied. Have I not from that time on caused you individually to hear and told [it] out? And YOU are my witnesses. Does there exist a God besides me? No, there is no Rock. I have recognised none.'" "The formers of the carved image are all of them an unreality, and their darlings themselves will be of no benefit; and as their witnesses they see nothing and know nothing, in order that they may be ashamed. Who has formed a god or cast a mere molten image? Of no benefit at all has it been."
Isaiah 44:15,16,17
reads: "And it has become [something] for man to keep a fire burning. So he takes part of it that he may warm himself. In fact he builds a fire and actually bakes bread. He also works on a god to which he may bow down. He has made it into a carved image, and he prostrates himself to it. Half of it he actually burns up in a fire. Upon half of it he roasts well the flesh that he eats, and he becomes satisfied. He also warms himself and says: "Aha! I have warmed myself. I have seen the firelight. "But the remainder of it he actually makes into a god itself, into his carved image. He prostrates himself to it and bows down and prays to it and says: "Deliver me, for you are my god."
Thus we can see that the gods Jehovah is being compared to, are
IDOLS formed or made by man and worshipped instead of Jehovah. Therefore NO God (that is, an idol made or formed by man) was formed BEFORE Jehovah THAT WAS REAL or ALIVE or ABLE to deliver them, and after Jehovah there continued to be none! For they never existed! Yes, the nation of Israel (along with the nations round about) made idols, but they were stone, or wood, and NOT alive or REAL or able to provide any salvation for them ever! Thus how foolish the nation was when they had a God like Jehovah to protect them.
Though some man-made idols may seem lifelike-often with a mouth, eyes, and ears-they cannot speak, see, or hear, and they can do nothing for their devotees. (
Psalm 135:15-18) This was shown in the eighth century B.C.E., when God's prophet recorded at Isaiah 43:8-28 what is, in effect, a court case between Jehovah and idol-gods. In it God's people Israel were on one side, and the worldly nations on the other. Jehovah challenged the false gods of the nations to tell "the first things," to prophesy accurately. Not one could do so. Turning to his people, Jehovah said: "You are my witnesses .. . . and I am God." The nations could not prove that their gods existed ahead of Jehovah or that they could prophesy. But Jehovah foretold Babylon's ruin and the release of his captive people.
Just for interest, here is a list of other translations and the way they translate John 1:1. I sourced this list from a public forum in June 1998
* 1768 and was himself a divine person ......... Harwood
* 1808 and the word was a god .................. Newcome
* 1829 the Logos was a god ..................... Thompson
* 1864 and a god was the Word .................. Wilson (Int)
* 1939 the Word was divine ..................... Goodspeed
* 1947 the Word was god ........................ Torrey
* 1961 what God was,the Word was ............... New English
* 1972 the Logos was divine .................... Moffatt
* 1973 The Word was with God and
shared his nature ....................... Translator's NT
* 1976 the nature of the Word was
the same as the nature of God ........... Barclay
* 1978 and godlike sort was the Logos .......... Schneider
* 1985 the Word was divine ..................... Schonfield
* 1989 what God was, the Word was .............. Revised English
* 1993 The Divine word and wisdom was there
with God, and it was what God was ....... Scholars Version
* 1994 the Word was a divine Being ............. Madsen
* 1979 ein Gott war das Logos
[a God/god was the Logos/logos] ......... Becker
* 1907 Das Wort war selbst go:ttlichen Wesens
[The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being] . Stage
* 1910 Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst
gttlichen Wesens [It was strongly linked to God,
yes itself divine Being/being] .......... Bhmer
* 1919 Gott von Art war das Wort
[God of Kind/kind was the Word/word] .... Thimme
* 1920 Gott (von Art) war der Logos [God (of Kind/kind)
was the Logos/logos] .................... Baumgarten et.al
* 1926 ein Gott war der Gedanke
[a God/god was the Thought/thought] ..... Holzmann
* 1938 selbst ein Gott war das Wort
[itself a God/god was the Word/word] .... Rittelmeyer
* 1945 Ordet var av guddomsart
[the Word was of divine kind] ........... Lyder Brun (Norw.
professor of NT theology)
* 1949 war von go:ttlicher Wucht
[was of divine Kind/kind] ............... Pfa:fflin
* 1957 go:ttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort
[godlike Being/being had the Word/word] . Albrecht
* 1960 verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen
[the word of the world was a divine being] ..... Smit
* 1961 Gott (= go:ttlichen Wesens) war das Wort
[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word) .. Menge
* 1980 Gott (von Art) war der Logos
[God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] ... Haenchen
* 1982 r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich
[He was with God and in all like God] ...... Die Bibel in
heutigem Deutsch
* 1984 divine (of the category divinity)
was the Logos Haenchen .................... (tr. by R.Funk)
* 1987 ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort
[a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind)
was the Word/word] ......................... Schultz
I hope all the above has shed some light on the subject, and demonstrates that the way the NWT translates John 1:1 is DIFFERENT and
All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."
NWT
The controversy with this text are the words "
through" and "apart from".
Where as the JKV uses the word "
by", most others use the word "through" such as TEV, NIV, PME, JB, RSV, and NEV. The Living Bible deviates from these in its rendering. It misses both lots of words. "He created everything there is - nothing exists that he did not make" This makes a very clear statement that everything was made by Jesus and leaves no room for the idea that Jesus could have been made.
The Greek word for "
through" is a preposition "denoting a channel of an act". Or, according to my English dictionary, "by means off". That does not indicate equality especially in the context of John.
Instead of the words "
apart from", all modern translation that I have looked at say "without". For example " All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made" (KJV).
The use of the words "
by" and "without" in the KJV also gives the apparent meaning that all Creation could not have happened unless The Word (Jesus) did it and that everythingthat exists was made by Jesus. Where as the way the NWT uses "apart from" the reader gets the impression that every thing else was created by (through) Jesus, except for Jesus. JWs use this text (along with several others) to support the idea that Jesus was created.
The use of the English word "
without" is quite within the translation boundaries. In English, the word "without" can have two subtly different meanings. It is therefore important to understand which meaning we should assign to the word. We also need to decide if the words "apart from" convey in English a clearer understanding of the original writers intent.
"
Without" is also a preposition and, denotes "not having/not with". If some one was to say that they were without medical insurance, this would convey the idea to their listeners that they are no part of the group of people that do have such insurance. This is the way it reads in most Modern Translations one feels that Jesus was "not with", or apart of, the rest of creation.
Also, the word "
without" can signify "at a space, i.e. separately or apart from". For example someone on a journey to a different country might say that they are here without their family. This tells the audience that they are part of a group of people that make up a family but at the moment this person is not with them. If we are to take this meaning then this indicates that Jesus (the Word) was used to create everything else after (or separately, apart from) himself. (This idea is consistent with Col.1:15..... more later or click here to go there now)
There is another little problem here that I see. If we are to take the words of John to mean as they appear to do in the JKV, what do the words "
All things" signify? Surely it would lead one to conclude that the Father was created by The Word as well, would it not?
What about the context of the Book of John? Does that add any other support to the idea that Jesus was not equal to God and thus support the NWT rendering of John 1:3?
In John 1:6 we are told about John the Baptiser as "
a man sent from God".(KJV) I understand that John was a different person to God, he had a message, and God "sent" him.
John used similar language in relation to Jesus as noted in the following (KJV)
John 3:17 "
For God sent not his Son ....... that the world through him..." (please notice the use of the word through here as well indicating at least two individuals, one superior to the other, the latter doing the work of the superior. (Some translations mentioned above say "sent". NIV, PME, JB, RSV, NEV all say "through")
John 5:19 "
The Son can do nothing of himself," indicating that there is a superior person in charge
"
the Son does nothing on his own" TEV
"
the Son can nothing of his own accord" PME, RSV
"
the Son can do nothing by himself"JB, NEB, NIV
John 5:23 "
which hath sent him"
AS ABOVE SIMILAR IDEAS IN OTHER TRANSLATIONS
John 5:30 "
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the father which hath sent me.(KJV)
John 6:57 "
As the living Father hath sent me..."(KJV)
John 17:3 "...
that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."(KJV)
These readings tell me that John did not view Jesus as being equal to his Father. Therefore, the way that the NWT has translated John 1:3 fits into the context of the chapter but also the Apistle of John From simple plain reading these tell me that they are not equal.
This is another text that a lot of people object too.
It reads in the NWT
"This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you,
the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth,
Jesus Christ."
Other translations that appear to be more popular in the English language do not use the phrase "
taking in knowledge". Instead they say "that they may (or should) know thee" RSV, KJV, ASV. "by knowing you" The Living Bible. "to know you" The Revised Berkeley Version. "that they may know you" NIV.
On reading these translation, the reader gets to fell that salvation comes from just knowing God and his Son, that is alll they have to do is have a knowledge of God. Whereas the NWT we are told that it is an ongoing process, continuing gaining knowledge. This indicates more is involved than just knowing about God but a continual commitment in getting to know God.
The word in question know or knowledge, centres around the Greek word
"GINOSKO" GINOSKO.
Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says
V
INE'S NEW TESTAMENT WORD SEARCH - COMPLETE
Know, Known, Knowledge, Unknown
A-1
, ginosko, [Verb, 1097]
Signifies "to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand," or "to understand completely," e.g., Mark 13:28,29; John 13:12; 15:18; 21:17; 2 Cor. 8:9; Heb. 10:34; 1 John 2:5; 4:2,6 (twice),7,13; 5:2,20; in its past tenses it frequently means "to know in the sense of realizing," the aorist or point tense usually indicating definiteness, Matt. 13:11; Mark 7:24; John 7:26; in John 10:38 "that ye may know (aorist tense) and understand, (present tense);" John 19:4; Acts 1:7; 17:19; Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:11 (2nd part),14; 2 Cor. 2:4; Eph. 3:19; 6:22; Phil. 2:19; 3:10; 1 Thess. 3:5; 2 Tim. 2:19; Jas. 2:20; 1 John 2:13 (twice),14; 3:6; 4:8; 2 John 1:1; Rev. 2:24; 3:3,9. In the Passive Voice, it often signifies "to become known," e.g., Matt. 10:26; Phil. 4:5. In the sense of complete and absolute understanding on God's part, it is used e.g., in Luke 16:15; John 10:15 (of the Son as well as the Father); 1 Cor. 3:20. In Luke 12:46, AV, it is rendered "he is ... aware."
In the NT ginosko frequently indicates a relation between the person "knowing" and the object known; in this respect, what is "known" is of value or importance to the one who knows, and hence the establishment of the relationship, e.g., especially of God's "knowledge," 1 Cor. 8:3, "if any man love God, the same is known of Him;" Gal. 4:9, "to be known of God;" here the "knowing" suggests approval and bears the meaning "to be approved;" so in 2 Tim. 2:19; cp. John 10:14,27; Gen. 18:19; Nah. 1:7; the relationship implied may involve remedial chastisement, Amos 3:2. The same idea of appreciation as well as "knowledge" underlies several statements concerning the "knowledge" of God and His truth on the part of believers, e.g., John 8:32; 14:20,31; 17:3; Gal. 4:9 (1st part); 1 John 2:3,13,14; 4:6,8,16; 5:20; such "knowledge" is obtained, not by mere intellectual activity, but by operation of the Holy Spirit consequent upon acceptance of Christ. Nor is such "knowledge" marked by finality; see e.g., 2 Pet. 3:18; Hos. 6:3, RV.
The verb is also used to convey the thought of connection or union, as between man and woman, Matt. 1:25; Luke 1:34.
A-2
, oida, [Verb, 1492]
from the same root as eidon, "to see," is a perfect tense with a present meaning, signifying, primarily, "to have seen or perceived;" hence, "to know, to have knowledge of," whether absolutely, as in Divine knowledge, e.g., Matt. 6:8,32; John 6:6,64; 8:14; 11:42; 13:11; 18:4; 2 Cor. 11:31; 2 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 2:2,9,13,19; 3:1,8,15; or in the case of human "knowledge," to know from observation, e.g, 1 Thess. 1:4,5; 2:1; 2 Thess. 3:7.
The differences between ginosko (No. 1) and oida demand consideration: (a) ginosko, frequently suggests inception or
progress in "knowledge," while oida suggests fullness of "knowledge," e.g., John 8:55, "ye have not known Him" (ginosko), i.e., begun to "know," "but I know Him" (oida), i.e., "know Him perfectly;" John 13:7, "What I do thou knowest not now," i.e. Peter did not yet perceive (oida) its significance, "but thou shalt understand," i.e., "get to know (ginosko), hereafter;" John 14:7, "If ye had known Me" (ginosko), i.e., "had definitely come to know Me," "ye would have known My Father also" (oida), i.e., "would have had perception of:" "from henceforth ye know Him" (ginosko), i.e., having unconsciously been coming to the Father, as the One who was in Him, they would now consciously be in the constant and progressive experience of "knowing" Him; in Mark 4:13, "Know ye not (oida) this parable? and how shall ye know (ginosko) all the parables?" (RV), i.e., "Do ye not understand this parable? How shall ye come to perceive all ..." the intimation being that the first parable is a leading and testing one; (b) while ginosko frequently implies an active relation between the one who "knows" and the person or thing "known" (see No. 1, above), oida expresses the fact that the object has simply come within the scope of the "knower's" perception; thus in Matt. 7:23 "I never knew you" (ginosko) suggests "I have never been in approving connection with you," whereas in Matt. 25:12, "I know you not" (oida) suggests "you stand in no relation to Me."
A-3
, epiginosko, [Verb, 1921]
denotes (a) "to observe, fully perceive, notice attentively, discern, recognize" (epi, "upon," and No. 1); it suggests generally a directive, a more special, recognition of the object "known" than does No. 1; it also may suggest advanced "knowledge" or special appreciation; thus, in Rom. 1:32, "knowing the ordinance of God" (epiginosko) means "knowing full well," whereas in verse Rom. 1:21 "knowing God" (ginosko) simply suggests that they could not avoid the perception. Sometimes epiginosko implies a special participation in the object "known," and gives greater weight to what is stated; thus in John 8:32, "ye shall know the truth," ginosko is used, whereas in 1 Tim. 4:3, "them that believe and know the truth," epiginosko lays stress on participation in the truth. Cp. the stronger statement in Col. 1:6 (epiginosko) with that in 2 Cor. 8:9 (ginosko), and the two verbs in 1 Cor. 13:12, "now I know in part (ginosko); but then shall I know (piginosko) even as also I have been known (epiginosko)," "a knowledge which perfectly unites the subject with the object; (b) "to discover, ascertain, determine," e.g., Luke 7:37; 23:7; Acts 9:30; 19:34; 22:29; 28:1; in Acts 24:11 the best mss. have this verb instead of No. 1; hence the RV, "take knowledge." J. Armitage Robinson (on Ephesians) points out that epignosis is "knowledge directed towards a particular object, perceiving, discerning," whereas gnosis is knowledge in the abstract. See
"to know beforehand," is used (a) of the Divine "foreknowledge" concerning believers, Rom. 8:29; Israel, 11:2; Christ as the Lamb of God, 1 Pet. 1:20, RV, "foreknown" (AV, "foreordained"); (b) of human previous "knowledge," of a person, Acts 26:5, RV, "having knowledge of" (AV, "which knew"); of facts, 2 Pet. 3:17. See
"to know, know of, understand" (probably an old Middle Voice form of ephistemi, "to set over"), is used in Mark 14:68, "understand," which follows oida "I (neither) know;" most frequently in the Acts, 10:28; 15:7; 18:25; 19:15,25; 20:18; 22:19; 24:10; 26:26; elsewhere, 1 Tim. 6:4; Heb. 11:8; Jas. 4:14; Jude 1:10. See
sun, "with," and No. 2, a perfect tense with a present meaning, denotes (a) "to share the knowledge of, be privy to," Acts 5:2; (b) "to be conscious of," especially of guilty consciousness, 1 Cor. 4:4, "I know nothing against (AV, by) myself." The verb is connected with suneidon, found in Acts 12:12; 14:6 (in the best texts). See
signifies (a) "to come to know, discover, know," Phil. 1:22, "I wot (not)," i.e., "I know not," "I have not come to know" (the RV, marg. renders it, as under (b), "I do not make known"); (b) "to make known," whether (I) communicating things "before unknown," Luke 2:15,17; in the latter some mss. have the verb diagnorizo (hence the AV, "made known abroad);" John 15:15, "I have made known;" 17:26; Acts 2:28; 7:13 (1st part), see Note (3) below; Rom. 9:22,23; 16:26 (Passive Voice); 2 Cor. 8:1, "we make known (to you)," RV, AV, "we do (you) to wit;" Eph. 1:9; 3:3,5,10 (all three in the Passive Voice); 6:19,21; Col. 1:27; 4:7,9, "shall make known" (AV, "shall declare"); 2 Pet. 1:16; or (II) reasserting things already "known," 1 Cor. 12:3, "I give (you) to understand" (the Apostle reaffirms what they knew); 1 Cor. 15:1, of the Gospel; Gal. 1:11 (he reminds them of what they well knew, the ground of his claim to Apostleship); Phil. 4:6 (Passive Voice), of requests to God. See
Notes: (1) In 2 Tim. 3:10, AV, parakoloutheo, "to follow closely, follow as a standard of conduct," is translated "hast fully known" (RV, "didst follow"). See
FOLLOW. (2) In 2 Tim. 4:17, AV, plerophoreo, "to fulfill, accomplish," is translated "might be fully known" (RV, "might be fully proclaimed"). See FULFILL. (3) In Acts 7:13, some mss. have the verb anagnorizo, "to make oneself known," "was made known," instead of No. 8 (which see). (4) In Acts 7:13 (2nd part) the AV, "was made known" translates the phrase phaneros ginomai, "to become manifest" (RV, "became manifest"). See MANIFEST. (5) For diagnorizo, "to make known," in Luke 2:17, see No. 8. (6) For diagnosko, in Acts 24:22, "I will know the uttermost of," See DETERMINE, No. 5.
B-1
, gnostos, [Adjective, 1110]
a later form of gnostos (from No. 1), most frequently denotes "known;" it is used ten times in the Acts, always with that meaning (save in Acts 4:16, where it means "notable"); twice in the Gospel of John, John 18:15,16; in Luke 2:44; 23:49 it denotes "acquaintance;" elsewhere only in Rom. 1:19, "(that which) may be known (of God)," lit., "the knowable of God," referring to the physical universe, in the creation of which God has made Himself "knowable," that is, by the exercise of man's natural faculties, without such supernatural revelations as those given to Israel. See
akin to A, No. 5, "knowing, skilled," is used in Jas. 3:13, AV, "endued with knowledge" (RV "understanding").
B-4
, agnostos, [Adjective, 57]
the negative of No. 1, "unknown," is found in Acts 17:23.
C-1
, gnosis, [Noun, 1108]
primarily "a seeking to know, an enquiry, investigation" (akin to A, No. 1), denotes, in the NT, "knowledge," especially of spiritual truth; it is used (a) absolutely, in Luke 11:52; Rom. 2:20; 15:14; 1 Cor. 1:5; 8:1 (twice),7,10,11; 13:2,8; 14:6; 2 Cor. 6:6; 8:7; 11:6; Eph. 3:19; Col. 2:3; 1 Pet. 3:7; 2 Pet. 1:5,6; (b) with an object: in respect of (1) God, 2 Cor. 2:14; 10:5; (2) the glory of God, 2 Cor. 4:6; (3) Christ Jesus, Phil. 3:8; 2 Pet. 3:18; (4) salvation, Luke 1:77; (c) subjectively, of God's "knowledge," Rom. 11:33; the word of "knowledge," 1 Cor. 12:8; "knowledge" falsely so called, 1 Tim. 6:20.
C-2
, epignosis, [Noun, 1922]
akin to A, No. 3, denotes "exact or full knowledge, discernment, recognition," and is a strengthened form of No. 1, expressing a fuller or a full "knowledge," a greater participation by the "knower" in the object "known," thus more powerfully influencing him. It is not found in the Gospels and Acts. Paul uses it 15 times (16 if Heb. 10:26 is included) out of the 20 occurrences; Peter 4 times, all in his 2nd Epistle. Contrast Rom. 1:28 (epignosis) with the simple verb in Rom. 1:21. "In all the four Epistles of the first Roman captivity it is an element in the Apostle's opening prayer for his correspondents' well-being, Phil. 1:9; Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:9; Philem. 1:6" (Lightfoot).
It is used with reference to God in Rom. 1:28; 10:2; Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:10; 2 Pet. 1:3; God and Christ, 2 Pet. 1:2; Christ, Eph. 4:13; 2 Pet. 1:8; 2:20; the will of the Lord, Col. 1:9; every good thing, Philem. 1:6, RV (AV, "acknowledging"); the truth, 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25, RV; 3:7; Titus 1:1, RV; the mystery of God. Col. 2:2, RV, "(that they) may know" (AV, "to the acknowledgment of"), lit., "into a full knowledge." It is used without the mention of an object in Phil. 1:9; Col. 3:10, RV, "(renewed) unto knowledge." See
GINOSKO … signifies to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, understand, or to understand completely"
A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament by G. Abbott-Smith says "to be taking in knowledge, come to know, recognise, perceive, understand…. Of the knowledge of divine things, of God and Christ… Jo 17:3
The Greek word verb GINOSKO denotes the act of knowing through experience. Getting to know our Creator and his Son is always ongoing, just as it takes a lifetime to get to really know a close friend or relative. And the only way that we can really get to know our God is by regular and consistent study of his word.
YOU, fathers, do not be irritating YOUR children, but go on bringing them up in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah"
NWT
Opponents to Jehovah's Witnesses say that they use Mind Control techniques in "recruiting" and keeping "recruits" especially in light of the above text that uses the words "
mental-regulating". It is asserted this rendition is not correct, and it gives JWs the go ahead to manipulate their children. Is this the way JWs see this text? Is it a reasonable way to translate that passage?
Please note what Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says about this word.
Noun: - "nouthesia (
nouqetew, 3559), lit., "a putting in mind" (nous, "mind", tithemi,"to put"), is used in 1 Cor.10:11, of the purpose of the Scriptures; in Eph. 6:4, of which is administered by the Lord; "
Verb:- "noutheteo……. It is used (a) of instruction, (b)of warning"
Notice the different ways other translations put this passage:-
"
bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord " (KJV)
"
bring them up with Christian discipline and instruction" (TEV)
"
bring them up with the loving discipline the Lord himself approves" (LB)
"
bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord" (NIV)
"
bring them up with Christian teaching in Christian discipline" (PME)
"
in bringing them up correct them and guide them as the Lord does" (JB)
"
bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (RSV)
"
give them the instruction and the correction, which belong to a Christian upbringing" (NEV)
As we can see, this passage is translated differently by some of the most popular translations in English. We (JWs) find no objection in any of these renderings.
So are JWs encouraged to go into "mind control" so that an organisation can tell them what to do when teaching their children? Please notice the following quotes.
*** g74 2/8 8 How Can You Help Your Children? ***
The TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament comments on the verb form of the Greek word for mental-regulating:
"[It] describes an effect on the will and disposition, and it presupposes an opposition which has to be overcome. It seeks to correct the mind, to put right what is wrong, to improve the spiritual attitude. . . . It does not mean ‘to punish,’ but through the word . . . to cause the appeal to the moral consciousness to gain a hold over men and bring them to repentance and shame, so that punishment is superfluous."
*** g81 4/8 11 What Can Parents Do to Help? ***
On his own, (our children) he may never do it. The Bible indicates that a young child does not know "how to reject the bad and choose the good."—Isa. 7:16.
How CanaChildBeTaughtThis?
The heart must be reached. He must develop his own inner motivation to "reject the bad and choose the good." If not, he may simply put on a superficial shrewdness about staying out of trouble. So in addition to "discipline," parents must ‘bring up’ their children in the "mental-regulating of Jehovah."—Eph. 6:4.
This requires putting information into the child’s mind that will touch his heart. It should motivate him in a right way and warn him of future dangers. The Bible term "mental-regulating" includes "whatever is needed to cause the monition to be taken home, to be laidtoheart."
*** w96 12/1 11 Parents, Find Pleasure in Your Children ***
"Mental-regulating of Jehovah" means regulating our thinking to conform to Jehovah’s will. Parents, then, must instill in the minds of their little ones Jehovah’s thinking on matters. And they must also imitate God’s example of providing compassionate discipline, or corrective training. (Psalm 103:10, 11; Proverbs 3:11, 12)
This mental regulating is the instilling in our children Bible Principles and a love and desire to please our creator, not a mind control to an organisation.
Most of the material in the following essay is adapted from the "Trinity Exposed " Web site. I have added my own research as well as pre empting questions that might arise by Trinitarians.
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [
other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things." (NWT)
These verses have caused a good deal of controversy because most people fell quite strongly that the NWT committee have insisted on their own theology by inserting [other] into the text. Such people conclude that Jesus is God, (or equal to God) because, they feel that these verses (without the word [other]) are teaching us the following:
1. Jesus is the one who created all things. Yet the NWT inserts the word [other] into the text Trinitarians say that by doing so, this detracts from Paul's claim that Jesus is the creator of ALL things, which ultimately detracts from Jesus' glory and puts Jesus into the class of created beings!
2. Jesus is called the firstborn, meaning that he is the "pre-eminent one" who is over all creation, but not a member of creation
Is Jesus Jehovah? Are the above thoughts correct?
First, we do well to look at the
context of Paul's words in order to arrive at a proper understanding. Starting from Colossians 1:12-15, we read: "12 thanking theFatherwho rendered YOU suitable for YOUR participation in the inheritance of the holy ones in the light.
13 He
(The Father) delivered us (The disciples) from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his (The Fathers) love, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He (The Son, hence Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." (NWT) (Bracketed words mine)
Is it reasonable to conclude from these verses, that it is the Father who is responsible for the disciples coming under the rulership or kingdom of Jesus, the "Son of his [the Father's] love."? So, is the context here speaking about theFather, and his accomplishments toward the disciples of the first century (or the anointed congregation.)? I feel that is a reasonable assumption to make especially since Paul goes on tell us something about this "Son of his [the Father's] love." He tells us in verse 15 that Jesus is the image (Greek:
eikon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of all (Greek: prototokos pases) creation (Greek: ktiseos). Let's look at each of these two descriptions of Jesus, before we move to verse 16. (The GNo = Strongs Greek index Number)
Jesus is the image (
eikon) of the invisible God. The Greek word eikon acording to Strong's means (GNo.. 1504): "a likeness, i.e. (lit.) statue, profile, or (fig.) representation, resemblance:- image." This word eikon is derived from eiko (GNo. 1503) " appear, a prim. Verb [perh. Akin to 1502 through the idea of faintness as a copy]; to resemble:- be like" (Bold mine)
Please note another description of Jesus at Heb 1:3 where he is said to be "
the express image" (KJV) of God. The word for "express image" is the word charakter, (GNo. 5481 of Hebrews 1:3 which means "… a graver (the tool or the person) i.e. (by impl.) engraving (["character"], the figure stamped, i.e. an exact copy or [fig.] representation):- express image." To follow that thought through, take the imprint of the stamp. It is NOT the stamp, but rather the "vessel," or "seal of clay" which bears the imprint (the figure stamped). When done carefully the imprint would be an exact copy or representation, would it not?
Vines Complete Expository Dictionary in its rendering of the word Image, links
eikon and charakter as being closely related.. (Just think of the English words we use that are derived from these two, icon, and character, and the way we understand them in our language.) I think, though, Vines makes a bold statement and assumption when it says "In the NT it is used metaphorically in Heb. 1:3, of the Son of God as 'the very image (marg., the impress) of His substance' RV. The phrase expresses the fact that the Son is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint (Liddon)." From my point of view, that kind of idea (as is common with those that believe that Jesus is God) is putting ones own "theology" or "doctrine" into the Scriptures as it is assumed that the NWT does. The comments sited do not give the reader any textual comments to support their idea, but the reader would get the impression as fact as to what the writer was saying.
The NWT is accused of inserting words and ideas into the text to conform to what the Translation Committee believed, but I see the NWT being honest and imputing no personal idea from these words. What do you see?
I see Paul is bringing to our attention, that Jesus is NOT the original, but rather a copy, reflection, or likeness, of the invisible God. He is NOT the Almighty invisible God, he is the Almighty invisible God's reflection. We might liken it to looking into a mirror. When you look into a mirror, you see your reflection or a copy of yourself. No one in their right mind would say that the actual reflection in the mirror is "literally" you, would they? No, because you are the one looking into the mirror. What is coming from the mirror is your reflection. The same is true with Jesus. He is NOT the invisible God, but he is the reflection, or copy of, the invisible God. Jesus, then, is the reflection or image, NOT the Source. Thus Jesus is NOT God.
Jesus is the "firstborn of" creation. Now some say, that if Paul here meant first-created, he would have use the term "protoktistos", which in Greek means first-created. Greg Stafford (in his book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended page 92) reports that this expression was not in popular use until the second or early third century CE. He gives quite a lot of detail as to the use of that term and where to find it in early Greek writings. So did Paul really mean to use First-created"? Consider the following.
Some will argue that "the word firstborn, as used in the Bible, does not always literally mean the first one that was born or created," and this is true, we go along with that. David was called "my firstborn" by Jehovah at Psalms 89:27. Yet David was not literally the firstborn of Jesse's family; he actually was the last one born. So in what sense could he be called Jehovah's firstborn? The term firstborn here refers to the pre-eminent position of rulership and the covenant for a kingdom that he would be given, to sit on Jehovah's throne, as the firstborn of those that would come from his family line. This scripture was fulfilled prophetically in Jesus, who would be from royal line of David as John 7:42 explains: "Has not the Scripture said that the Christ is coming from the offspring of David, and from Beth'lehem the village where David used to be?"
Now because of this, some conclude that the word "firstborn," as translated here in Colossians 1:15, shows the role of "pre-eminence" that Jesus would have over creation. Does this line of reasoning apply to what Paul said here about Jesus at Colossians 1:15? The answer I come to is NO!
The term that Paul used of Jesus here was not the word "firstborn" by itself, like at Psalms 89:27. It was the words "
firstborn of." Now, with this being said, what is the import? The term "firstborn of" , according to Strongs Concordance, occurs in the Bible in 34 different texts (not including Colossians 1:15 which was the only place in the JKV NT). And every single instance of its use, shows that the one being spoken of (the subject) is in the class or group of those mentioned. Let us look at a few examples of this. At Exodus 11:5 we read: "...from the firstborn of Phar'aoh who is sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the maidservant who is at the hand mill and every firstborn of beast."
Here we see that those called "firstborn" are
members of the class, or group next mentioned, ie: "the firstborn of Phar'aoh,"....was of the house of Pharaoh....."the firstborn of the maidservant,"......was a slave, or of the maidservant....."the "firstborn of beast,".....was a beast. Thus all of these referred to as "firstborn of" were all members of the class or group mentioned in the text.
Does this then mean, as some have said, that Jesus should have been called the firstborn of Jehovah? For if he is the "
firstborn of every creature"(JKV), are we to conclude then, that "creation parented Jesus," because Pharaoh "parented his firstborn?
Well what did Paul say? He called Jesus "
prototokos pases ktiseos," "the firstborn of all creation." (NWT) Paul wrote these inspired words in the grammatical case which is called the partitive genitive. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament on page 79, indicates "a noun [in the case of Colossians 1:15, this would be prototokos or firstborn] may be defined, by indicating in the genitive [in Colossians 1:15, this would be pases ktiseos or of all creation] the whole [creation] of which it [firstborn] is a part." Thus, according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon on page 555, " [Jesus]....came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things."
Thus this term, "firstborn of," is not speaking about the parent of the subject, but rather, it is pointing to the group or class to which the subject belongs!
Yes, Jesus indeed
isin the group of those that were created.(Proverbs 8:22; John 3:16) However, his creation is very unique as is evident by the expression Paul used, the "firstborn of all creation." What exactly does this tell us?
Let us look to Colossians 1:18, which reads: "
and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things."
Notice here that Jesus is called the "
firstborn from the dead." How can this be true, for did not Jesus and other prophets of God raise persons from the dead? Yes they did! Thus this phrase, as applied to Jesus, tells of the type of resurrection Jesus had. His resurrection had to be unique in order for the term "firstborn from the dead" to be applied to him. But in what way? The Bible tells of two ways Jesus earns the title the "firstborn from the dead."
First: Galatians 1:1 says:
"Paul, an apostle, neither from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him up from the dead" Peter said also at Acts 5:30: "The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom YOU slew, hanging him upon a stake." (NWT)
Yes, it was God the Father himself who resurrected Jesus directly. Remember Jesus' words at John 5:28,29: "
Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out."
Yes, when the dead are raised in the future, they will be raised because they hear Jesus' voice. (see 1Thess. 4:16 below) Thus all other resurrections in the future, from the time of Jesus' death on, will be through Jesus Christ. However, the resurrection of Jesus was done directly by the Father. Thus, Jesus rightfully is called the
firstborn from the dead in this sense. But let us look at another way Jesus earns the titlefirstborn from the dead.
Second: Jesus told his disciples that where he would be, they would be also. John 14:3 reads: "
Also, if I go my way and prepare a place for YOU, I am coming again and will receive YOU home to myself, that where I am YOU also may be." Yes, just as Jesus was resurrected to heaven, his disciples were to be raised with him. Notice that Jesus said "I am coming again and will receive YOU home." Yes, Jesus was the one who would resurrect those that would be with him in heaven. This is brought out clearer in 1Thessalonians 4:16, which says: "because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first."
Yes Jesus was the
firstborn from the dead to go to heaven. Others would follow. Jesus, as seen by Paul's words above, will descend and the dead will hear his voice, and those that are in union with Jesus (Romans 8:15,16) will be resurrected to heaven. Others, as John 5:28 says, will also be raised by Jesus to a glorious new earth. (Psalms 37:11,29; Matthew 5:5; 2Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:3,4)
Now in order to fully understand what the apostle Paul meant by the term "
firstborn of all creation," we must turn our discussion to Colossians 1:16. Is Jesus the creator of all things and is the insertion of the word [other] proper? First, let us notice the end of verse 16. There we read: "All [other] things have been created through him and for him." Notice here that Jesus is the one "through whom all [other] things were created." The Greek word translated "through" is dia. In this verse, dia means: "denoting the channel of an act, agency, means." Yes, Jesus was the "means through which" creation took place. Notice also that this creation was done "for" him. Who did this "for him?" Paul tell us in Hebrews 1:1,2 : "God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things."
Yes it was Jesus' own God and Father, Jehovah (Micah 5:4) who made the system of things through his Son, who was with him in heaven! (Proverbs 30:4; 8:22,30; Genesis 1:26)
But is it proper to insert the word [other] into the text at Colossians 1:16,17? Well, as we have established, it was the Father, Jehovah, that was the author of creation. Jesus was the Father's means or instrument or channel by which His creation was accomplished. Also, as we have established above, it was the Father who was responsible for the disciples coming under the rulership or kingdom of Jesus, the "Son of his [the Father's] love." So the context leading up to Colossians 1:15,16 is dealing with the
Father.
Now if we do NOT add the word [other] into the text, what would this mean? Well, if Jesus created ALL THINGS THAT WERE IN HEAVEN" then we would be under obligationto say that Jesus created his Father! For the Father most certainly is in heaven! And the context is dealing with the Father sending his Son. Also, the Father most certainly is a "thing." Webster's defines the word "thing" as: "that which is referred to as existing as an individual, an entity, a tangible object, a person." Yes, all things in heaven include the Father, who according to trinitarians IS a person. So then, are we to imagine that Jesus created God the Father? Well, the Bible teaches that the Father is the King of eternity at 1Tim.1:17. So one in this position hardly could be a created being! So you
ABSOLUTELY NEED to insert the word [other] into the text, so as to avoid any confusion on this matter. But this is not the only reason the insertion of the word [other] is appropriate as we will see.
Pausing for a moment, let us consider what some mistakenly have stated. Some say that Paul could have used another word in this text, if he wanted to say that Jesus was "just a created being." Well, very simply, this is NOT what Paul wanted to say! This is NOT the point of the verse. For the thought that Paul was conveying was NOT that Jesus was "just a created being." Thus, those that make this statement do not even understand the verse in the first place. As Paul revealed in verse 15, Jesus' creation was unique.
Paul's thought was that Jehovah directly created his Son Jesus, hence the title "the firstborn of all creation." We see this by John's use of the phrase the "only begotten Son" as in John 3:16. Jesus creation was a distinct type of creation, in that there was NO "channel," or "means by which," the creation of Jesus was accomplished. It was Jehovah's only direct creation.All [other] creations were different types of creations, as they were all done through Jesus as the "channel," or "means by which" these different creations came into being. Yes, these [other] things were all different in that they were creations made THROUGH Jesus. This is why Jesus is called the "prototokos" [firstborn] of all creation, or God's 'monogenes,' his "only begotten."
Thus, concerning these [other] things, Jesus is the means by which they came into being from the Father. It is NOT, as again some have mistakenly said, that God created Jesus, and then Jesus created all other things! Let us continue with our discussion.
To translate the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into the English (or any language for that matter) is an awesome task. Bible translation committees have to struggle with the all important task of translating words from one language into another in a way that reflects the full impact, feeling, and flavour, of the original text. They must do this, while being conscience of doing so in a way that would not include any "overly biased views" that ultimately distort the translation. Words written in the original languages often are written in specific grammatical cases, or are placed in determined locations in the sentence, all of which indicate the full meaning of the word in the text. However, when you translate them into another language that does not use these different devices to indicate the same meaning, you need to insert words that impart the full flavour and understanding of the original word into the new language you are translating into.
