The Revised New World Translation: Will it stand the test of time?
avatar

As Witnesses embrace the new bible we ask, "will it stand the test of time?"

As Witnesses embrace the new bible we ask, “will it stand the test of time?”

Many Jehovah’s Witnesses are overwhelmed with excitement following the release of the revised New World Translation at the 129th Annual Meeting over the weekend.

A number have taken to social media to express their joy and appreciation at what is being viewed by many as a gift straight from Jehovah. Geoffrey Jackson, who announced the release of the new Bible, even suggested that Jehovah had manipulated weather conditions to better facilitate its printing.

The new Bible has been available online since Monday, giving us the chance to see how it compares with the original. We also now have opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the various features of the book and ponder the question: “Will it stand the test of time?”

Improvements

More research tools

The new revision to the New World Translation boasts a number of research tools that were absent from the original. These include a glossary of Bible terms and two lengthy appendices. I am particularly impressed with the timeline of kings of Judah and Israel (A6), the chart showing biblical weights and measures (B14) and the much clearer Hebrew Calendar (B15). It is also nice to see footnotes on each page to show alternative terms, which (like the appendices) were previously only to be found in the Reference Bible.

The introductions to each Bible book with summaries of each chapter are also helpful, provided these are not used to mislead people (as I will touch on later).

Improved readability

The most obvious improvement to the New World Translation is that it is now written in English that most people will find easier to understand. This can only be a bonus for those who want to be able to read their Bibles more easily. The original edition, released in the 1950s, used language of the era that could at times be confusing. But with this revision it is much simpler to grasp the meaning of certain scriptures.

The English language has changed since the New World Translation was released in the 1950s

The English language has changed since the New World Translation was released in the 1950s

For example, expressions like “there proceeded to be” and “there came to be” are mostly gone, but not in such a way that the meaning is lost. And rather than being spelled out in words, numbers like 144,000 are simply expressed in digits. Because so many unnecessary words have been chopped from the text, this has resulted in a reduced total wordcount from approximately 907,000 words to 786,000 – a 13% reduction!

Another reason for the reduced wordcount has been the omission of a small number of bible verses now deemed spurious, namely the long and short conclusions to Mark, and John 7:53-8:11. As expected, this has not met with universal praise. One JWsurvey reader, author Robert Crompton, had this to say…

“I find it interesting that they have removed the alternative endings of Mark and the story about showing mercy in John 7:53 – 8:11. Usual translation practice is to include these with a note pointing out that they only appear in later (but nevertheless still early) manuscripts. That is, there is some, albeit limited, justification for referenced inclusion of these passages. And this limited justification is vastly greater than their justification for including the divine name which doesn’t appear in any NT manuscripts, only in late translations and other non-NT manuscripts.”

I would tend to agree with Robert on this. The fact that these texts were not in all of the earliest manuscripts does not necessarily mean that they shouldn’t have been. A more scholarly way of dealing with the problem would be to include the text with a clear indication of any reservations as to authenticity – as the original New World Translation did. To do otherwise is to risk omitting verses from the Bible that were intended to be in the original, and are therefore just as deserving to be considered as “inspired” scripture.

For those interested in researching this further, here are some interesting links on the omitted verses…

Better rendering of 1 Timothy 6:4

I must point out one significant improvement that has been made to one verse in particular that has caused considerable problems for thinking Witnesses – especially over the past two years. I refer to 1 Timothy 6:3-4, which used to read as follows (bold is mine)…

“If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to the healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions.” – 1 Tim 6:3,4 New World Translation

This same verse now reads…

“If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion, he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words. These things give rise to envy, strife, slander, wicked suspicions.”- 1 Tim 6:3,4 Revised New World Translation

As you can see, the reference to apostates being “mentally diseased” has been removed and the verse translated more correctly to reflect the true intent of the writer. The footnote in the new Bible offers “an unhealthy fascination” as a further rendering, which is also notably different from how people today would consider the term “mentally diseased.”

Despite the obvious translation error in the original New World Translation, this did not stop Watchtower from recently using the term “mentally diseased” to berate those who disagree with organizational doctrine in the July 15, 2011 Watchtower. So loud was the uproar from the article that a journalist for the Independent wrote a piece on the “war of words” that the Society appeared to be waging against their dissenters. Seemingly unfazed by such exposure, the Governing Body had the phrase included recently in the outline for the “Human Apostates” talk at the 2013 District Convention.

The Independent newspaper reports on the July, 15 2011 Watchtower

The Independent’s article on the July, 15 2011 Watchtower (click to enlarge)

 

Though it is to be applauded that the erroneous and offensive “mentally diseased” expression has finally been extracted from the New World Translation, it can be argued that the damage has already been done. The term “mentally diseased” is now cemented in Witness jargon when it comes to describing any who disagree with the Governing Body.

It remains to be seen whether future writings on apostates will be softened following this change, but I am personally doubtful that there will be any significant toning-down of hateful rhetoric against former believers and free thinkers in the organization.

And can we expect a printed apology for the mischaracterization of so-called apostates based on a previous flawed bible translation? Again, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

And now the bad news…

Poor communication and limited availability

It would not be fair to repeat myself too much on the manner of the book’s release, but I feel a few things should be reiterated in this review. I have already commented on a previous article that there was absolutely no reason for the Governing Body to leave ordinary brothers in the dark as to why there was a shortage of Bibles. The fact that congregations were left guessing as their Bible stocks dwindled suggests strongly that the Governing Body was more interested in having their ticker-tape release than managing the expectations of the brothers.

There is frustration at the way some Witnesses were left out of the new Bible launch

There is frustration at the way some Witnesses were left out of the new Bible launch

I have also learned of a very uneven state of affairs in the way the new Bibles are being distributed in some congregations.

According to one report, Witnesses in England have been instructed to start using the new Bibles immediately, even though only a privileged few who attended the Annual Meeting event (mostly elders and their wives) have received their new Bibles. Until new Bibles are delivered for all, the rest of the congregation must make do with their old Bibles for some weeks.

This is causing frustration at the apparent elitist distinction as to who is more favored or “exemplary” in the congregation. Those not privileged to attend the Annual Meeting events and receive new Bibles are left feeling unworthy and overlooked. This problem could easily have been avoided by releasing the new Bibles simultaneously at the District Conventions once there were enough copies for all (as with any other release). But again, this would not have sufficiently satisfied the Governing Body’s apparent lust for acclaim and recognition.

“Governing body” inserted in chapter summary

Before seeing the new Bible for myself I was apprehensive over one matter in particular. I feared that Watchtower would attempt to spuriously insert the phrase “governing body” in the six instances in Acts chapters 15 and 16 where the phrase “apostles and older men” appears. These verses are often highlighted by Watchtower in an attempt to prove that there was a First Century “governing body” when there was no such thing.

You can imagine my relief when I saw that Watchtower had NOT stooped to such a low. The six instances of “the apostles and the older men” (5 in Acts 15, 1 in Acts 16) have been tweaked only slightly to read “the apostles and the elders.”

But my relief was short-lived.

Though the Bible verses themselves have been left un-touched, someone drew my attention to the fact that Watchtower has very cleverly inserted “governing body” in the chapter summary for Acts (pages 1459-1460) as follows…

new-bible-governing-body

As I said, there was no such thing as a “governing body” in the First Century. Yes, Jesus appointed his 12 apostles, but even Watchtower doesn’t like to compare the apostles directly with the Governing Body because they know how ridiculous this would sound. They therefore zero-in on a passage of scripture in Acts, chapters 15 and 16, and insist that “the apostles and the elders” served as a “governing body.”

There are two major problems with this, namely…

  1. You cannot take the circumcision issue of Acts 15 in isolation and use it to extrapolate the idea of the apostles AND elders meeting together from that point onward to decide each and every issue that arose in the Christian congregation thereafter. To do so would be to assume something that is not found in the text.
  2. Most crucially, by super-imposing the phrase “governing body” OVER the phrase “apostles and elders,” you are adding to the scriptures. You are effectively telling Jehovah, “You are incapable of explaining yourself because you didn’t describe the apostles and elders under a collective noun similar to ‘governing body’, so we will do that for you.”

By stamping the collective noun “governing body” over the term “apostles and elders,” whether in the bible text itself or in bible commentary, Watchtower is going against 1 Corinthians, which says…

“Now, brothers, these things I have applied to myself and Apollos for your good, that through us you may learn the rule: ‘Do not go beyond the things that are written,’ so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other.” - 1 Cor. 4:6 Revised New World Translation

Shackled to the 1914 teaching

I opened this article by asking whether this revised New World Translation will stand the test of time, and I will now give the main reason why I believe it won’t.

A foundation teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the 1914 doctrine – the belief that Christ arrived in kingly power invisibly in 1914 and banished Satan to the earth for a “short period of time.” (Rev. 12:12) Well, that “short period of time” before Satan is abyssed and the Kingdom is established on the Earth is now 99 years and counting – certainly not a “short period of time” in any human context. And with each passing decade, it is becoming increasingly obvious that despite marking the beginning of World War I, 1914 held no significance in bible prophecy at all.

But with this new Bible, Watchtower is chaining itself to the 1914 teaching for decades to come – perhaps indefinitely. How so? Take a look at a detail from a page in Appendix B of the new Bible…

Taken from page 1767, revised New World Translation

Taken from page 1767, revised New World Translation

 

The above chart has clearly been produced by Watchtower with the firm belief that Armageddon is imminent. I can think of no other reason why Watchtower would marry itself to the idea of Armageddon and a cleansed Earth being only a “short time” from 1914. They must really be THAT deluded.

The trouble is, as previously stated, it is already obvious to many that 1914 was nothing more than a coincidence of history and a year with no prophetic meaning. As further decades tick by, the above chart will become more and more painful for Witnesses to open their Bibles and look at.

But that’s not the only time the 1914 teaching is referenced in this new Bible. I will now show a chart on page 1780 depicting Daniel’s immense image (to the right of the picture below). The new Bible shows the image with a caption at the bottom saying that the feet of iron mixed with molded clay began in 1914. Notice how similar Watchtower’s picture is to a detail from another chart (to the left), produced more than 170 years earlier.

Left - chart produced by Second Adventists predicting Christ's return in 1843; right - chart on page 1780 of the revised New World Translation

Left – detail from chart produced by Second Adventists predicting Christ’s return in 1843; right – chart on page 1780 of the revised New World Translation attributing 1914 as the start of the iron mixed with clay

 

The detail on the left is taken from a famous chart that was used by Second Adventist followers of William Miller to pronounce the year 1843 as heralding the second coming of Christ. When nothing happened in that year, Miller’s followers went back to the drawing board and decided that Christ was actually due on October 22, 1844.

That date went down in history as the “Great Disappointment,” because so many had sold their homes and property in expectation of a rapture that would never happen. It was likely this event that made Charles Taze Russell skeptical of Second Adventists, even though he eventually started to mimic the same fascination with date-setting after meeting Nelson H. Barbour.

It is easy to look back on the Adventist chart now, especially the part at the bottom (not shown above) where the date “1843″ is inscribed in big bold letters, and smirk at how naive and misguided Miller’s followers were.

1914 is already distant history

1914 is already distant history

So just imagine how future generations of Witnesses will cringe with the same embarrassment when they dust off and open their old 2013 revised New World Translations and are reminded of the certainty with which 1914 was put forth as holding prophetic significance – and in a book that was printed sufficiently far from that date as to make it obvious that the prediction had already failed.

Of course there are bound to be Witnesses reading this who will be thinking: “Ah, you’re saying that now, but just you wait and see! Armageddon will arrive any moment and fully vindicate the 1914 teaching, and then you’ll be sorry!”

Well obviously you are welcome to think that way if it brings you comfort. But the simple fact is the 1914 teaching was already proved false some time ago when the generation that witnessed the events of that year fell asleep in death. With their passing, no longer could it be said by any reasonable stretch of the imagination that 1914 was a “short period of time” in the past. Instead, 1914 is now sliding ever deeper into the annals of history.

What fascinates me is that rather than recognizing their mistake, or acknowledging that they COULD be in error by keeping their options open, Watchtower is tying itself to the 1914 teaching for as long as this new Bible will be in use. And you can imagine it will be in use for many more decades. This is arguably the biggest problem with the new Bible, and one that will become increasingly obvious as the decades roll by. The sell-by date is simply too short.

 

John Cedars signature logo

 

 

 

 

Further reading…

Related videos…

Bookmark the permalink.

111 Responses to The Revised New World Translation: Will it stand the test of time?

  1. Judah Maccabee says:

    Also, Cedars, thanks for your effort.

    Judah

  2. Pav says:

    Comments presented in this article are made by person biased totally to nwt.
    May I know what translation is the best according to the author ???? Is there such???

  3. cheryl says:

    I am not an elder’s wife nor were those of my friends that I drove with to the annual meeting and we all got the new Bible. Our whole congregation was invited to the annual meeting and for those who did attend……they all got a new Bible. WE all were told to start using them immediately……and those who didn’t attend the meeting still had to use the old Bibles. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to reason on that. It was within that very month that the shipment of new Bibles was delivered to our Kingdom Hall and then EVERYONE had a new Bible. What’s so horribly wrong with having to wait a couple weeks for your Bible?????

    • Cedars says:

      I notice you’re posting from America, so it looks like you need to scroll back up and re-read my comments on Bible distribution. They were based on experiences in the UK, not the States. Hopefully you can appreciate that just because Bibles were quick to arrive in your American congregation, does not necessarily mean the same was true the world over.

  4. Paulo de Tarso says:

    Hi everybody;
    I am from Brazil and would like to ask how did you find this mistranslated verse, considering that here we haven`t received the new translation. Are you talking from Portugal? Have you received it there? Obrigado pela atenção aferida!

  5. Ben1957 says:

    It is true that no surviving Greek text has the full rendering of the divine name in them. That does not prove that it was not there. YES it does matter if the wrong Proper noun “Jesus” or Jehovah”is used because that has a bearing on the identity of the person being spoken about. If Jesus is used in stead of Jehovah the reader will get the wrong idea.

    IN FACT the Divine name IS THERE. You will find a shortened or abbreviated version of Jehovah DOES appear in the NT in Revelation 19:1,3,5 & 6 in the form used by the Psalms many times. The Greek form is “allelouia”. Many English Bibles render it as “ Halleluiah” the last three letters are the abbreviation of Jehovah namely “jah” . Some Bibles render it as “Praise the Lord”.

    Strongs Greek Lexicon gives the following meaning “of Hebrew origin praise ye Jah!,” So the writer of revelation John uses a Hebrew expression that is used about 25 times in Psalms. Where it occurs in the Psalms, Most Bibles tend to use the expression “Praise the LORD”. The Calvin Bible, Darby, Good News Bibles all use Hallelujah. Young’s Literal Translation says “Praise ye Jehovah” The NT writers were well aware of the divine name.

    There are many texts that show that GOD wanted his divine name made known.
    Isaiah 52:6 “Therefore my people shall know my name:”
    Jeremiah 16 21 ”… and they shall know that my name is The LORD.” (LORD = Divine name YHWH = Jehovah)
    Ezekiel 6:7 “… and ye shall know that I am the LORD.” That phrase appears more that 50 times in Ezekiel.

    Where Greek texts say simply “kurios” (lord), that can refer to Jesus , or God, or as a matter of fact anyone that was a master. The Context needs to be considered. In many places it may be unclear as to who the word “lord” is referring to. In those cases I support the English use of lord. However when the use of “kurios” in the Greek text is a direct quote from the OT and the OT uses the Divine name, then the Divine name should be used.

  6. Ben1957 says:

    In reply to
    Judah Maccabee 
    March 11, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    Is it true that the Greek manuscripts of Colossians 3:13 say ““Christ (Christos) freely forgave”.

    The truth is Colossians 3:13 reads differently in different master Greek texts. I have electronic copies of the following Greek Master texts. I list them in the order of who uses Christos or who uses kurios

    Christos
    Tischendorf’s 8th Edition Greek text (1859)
    Stephanas Textus Receptus (1550)
    Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894)
    Byzantine Majority Greek text

    The above master Greek texts are all later compilations of texts done after 1550

    kurios
    United Bible Society 4 revision
    Nestles Alands 27 Vertion
    Tregelles Greek Text
    Westcot and Horts Greek text
    Codex Vaticanus (Approximate 400 c.e.)

    Now this final one is interesting as it uses “theos” and that is the Codex Sinaiticus (Approximate 400 c.e.)

    Does 2 Thessalonians 2:2 say “the day of Christ (Christou)” ? The following Master Greek Texts say b>“the day of the Lord”

    United Bible Society 4 revision
    Tischendorf’s 8th Edition Greek text (1859)
    Nestles Alands 27 Vertion
    Tregelles Greek Text
    Westcot and Horts Greek text
    Codex Vaticanus
    Codex Siniaticus

    2 Thessalonians 2:2 seems to be a quote from Isaiah13:6 “ Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand;” and or from Zephaniah 1:14 ” “The great day of the LORD is near,” where LORD = the Divine name YHWH = Jehovah

    Colossians 1:14 and Colossians 1:27 what should the rendering be? It is absolutely true that the base word used there is the Greek preposition “en “ generally rendered as “in”. However that is rarely the case that it has the simple meaning of “in” . Strongs Greek Lexicon gives the following meaning

    “a primary prep. denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by impl.) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between 1519 eis and 1537 ἐκ); “in, ” at, (up-) on, by, etc.:—about, after, against, + almost, × altogether, among, × as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (… sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), × mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, × outwardly, one, × quickly, × shortly, [speedi-] ly, × that, × there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep”

    Thayer’s Greek Lexicon has a lot more to say on this preposition and the way it can be used. Under point 6 it says that a connection or union with another is often meant by this word.

    “ of that in which any person or thing is inherently fixed, implanted, or with which it is b>intimately connected; a. of the whole in which a part inheres:  b. of a person to whom another is wholly joined and to whose power and. influence he is subject, so that the former may be likened to the place in which the latter lives and moves.  So used in the writings of Paul and of John particularly of b>intimate relationship with God or with Christ, and for the most part involving contextually the idea of power and blessing resulting from that b>union thus, ….. in Christ, of his disciples and worshippers,…. amplified and strengthened in the fellowship of God and the consciousness of that fellowship, ….. ingrafted as it were in Christ, in fellowship and union with Christ, with the Lord:  …..Since such union with Christ is the basis on which actions and virtues rest, the expression is equivalent in meaning to by virtue of spiritual fellowship or union with Christ; in this sense it is joined to the following words and phrases: “ (Bold Mine italics original)

    The NWT gives the full and clearer English idea of what the original language conveyed.

  7. Ben1957 says:

    In reply to
    Judah Maccabee 
    March 11, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    Is it true that the Greek manuscripts of Colossians 3:13 say ““Christ (Christos) freely forgave”.

    The truth is Colossians 3:13 reads differently in different master Greek texts. I have electronic copies of the following Greek Master texts. I list them in the order of who uses Christos or who uses kurios

    Christos
    Tischendorf’s 8th Edition Greek text (1859)
    Stephanas Textus Receptus (1550)
    Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894)
    Byzantine Majority Greek text

    The above master Greek texts are all later compilations of texts done after 1550

    kurios
    United Bible Society 4 revision
    Nestles Alands 27 Vertion
    Tregelles Greek Text
    Westcot and Horts Greek text
    Codex Vaticanus (Approximate 400 c.e.)

    Now this final one is interesting as it uses “theos” and that is the Codex Sinaiticus (Approximate 400 c.e.)

    Does 2 Thessalonians 2:2 say “the day of Christ (Christou)” ? The following Master Greek Texts say “the day of the Lord”

    United Bible Society 4 revision
    Tischendorf’s 8th Edition Greek text (1859)
    Nestles Alands 27 Vertion
    Tregelles Greek Text
    Westcot and Horts Greek text
    Codex Vaticanus
    Codex Siniaticus

    2 Thessalonians 2:2 seems to be a quote from Isaiah13:6 “ Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand;” and or from Zephaniah 1:14 ” “The great day of the LORD is near,” where LORD = the Divine name YHWH = Jehovah

    Colossians 1:14 and Colossians 1:27 what should the rendering be? It is absolutely true that the base word used there is the Greek preposition “en “ generally rendered as “in”. However that is rarely the case that it has the simple meaning of “in” . Strongs Greek Lexicon gives the following meaning

    “a primary prep. denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by impl.) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between 1519 eis and 1537 ἐκ); “in, ” at, (up-) on, by, etc.:—about, after, against, + almost, × altogether, among, × as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (… sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), × mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, × outwardly, one, × quickly, × shortly, [speedi-] ly, × that, × there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep”

    Thayer’s Greek Lexicon has a lot more to say on this preposition and the way it can be used. Under point 6 it says that a connection or union with another is often meant by this word.

    “ of that in which any person or thing is inherently fixed, implanted, or with which it isintimately connected; a. of the whole in which a part inheres:  b. of a person to whom another is wholly joined and to whose power and. influence he is subject, so that the former may be likened to the place in which the latter lives and moves.  So used in the writings of Paul and of John particularly of intimate relationship with God or with Christ, and for the most part involving contextually the idea of power and blessing resulting from that union thus, ….. in Christ, of his disciples and worshippers,…. amplified and strengthened in the fellowship of God and the consciousness of that fellowship, ….. ingrafted as it were in Christ, in fellowship and union with Christ, with the Lord:  …..Since such union with Christ is the basis on which actions and virtues rest, the expression is equivalent in meaning to by virtue of spiritual fellowship or union with Christ; in this sense it is joined to the following words and phrases: “ (Bold Mine italics original)

    The NWT gives the full and clearer English idea of what the original language conveyed.

  8. Ben1957 says:

    In reply to
    Judah Maccabee 
    March 11, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    Is it true that the Greek manuscripts of Colossians 3:13 say ““Christ (Christos) freely forgave”.

    The truth is Colossians 3:13 reads differently in different master Greek texts. I have electronic copies of the following Greek Master texts. I list them in the order of who uses Christos or who uses kurios

    Christos
    Tischendorf’s 8th Edition Greek text (1859)
    Stephanas Textus Receptus (1550)
    Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894)
    Byzantine Majority Greek text

    The above master Greek texts are all later compilations of texts done after 1550

    kurios
    United Bible Society 4 revision
    Nestles Alands 27 Vertion
    Tregelles Greek Text
    Westcot and Horts Greek text
    Codex Vaticanus (Approximate 400 c.e.)

    Now this final one is interesting as it uses “theos” and that is the Codex Sinaiticus (Approximate 400 c.e.)

    Does 2 Thessalonians 2:2 say “the day of Christ (Christou)” ? The following Master Greek Texts say “the day of the Lord”

    United Bible Society 4 revision
    Tischendorf’s 8th Edition Greek text (1859)
    Nestles Alands 27 Vertion
    Tregelles Greek Text
    Westcot and Horts Greek text
    Codex Vaticanus
    Codex Siniaticus

    2 Thessalonians 2:2 seems to be a quote from Isaiah13:6 “ Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand;” and or from Zephaniah 1:14 ” “The great day of the LORD is near,” where LORD = the Divine name YHWH = Jehovah

    Colossians 1:14 and Colossians 1:27 what should the rendering be? It is absolutely true that the base word used there is the Greek preposition “en “ generally rendered as “in”. However that is rarely the case that it has the simple meaning of “in” . Strongs Greek Lexicon gives the following meaning

    “a primary prep. denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by impl.) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between 1519 eis and 1537 ἐκ); “in, ” at, (up-) on, by, etc.:—about, after, against, + almost, × altogether, among, × as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (… sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), × mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, × outwardly, one, × quickly, × shortly, [speedi-] ly, × that, × there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep”

    Thayer’s Greek Lexicon has a lot more to say on this preposition and the way it can be used. Under point 6 it says that a connection or union with another is often meant by this word.

    “ of that in which any person or thing is inherently fixed, implanted, or with which it is intimately connected; a. of the whole in which a part inheres:  b. of a person to whom another is wholly joined and to whose power and. influence he is subject, so that the former may be likened to the place in which the latter lives and moves.  So used in the writings of Paul and of John particularly of intimate relationship with God or with Christ, and for the most part involving contextually the idea of power and blessing resulting from that union thus, ….. in Christ, of his disciples and worshippers,…. amplified and strengthened in the fellowship of God and the consciousness of that fellowship, ….. ingrafted as it were in Christ, in fellowship and union with Christ, with the Lord:  …..Since such union with Christ is the basis on which actions and virtues rest, the expression is equivalent in meaning to by virtue of spiritual fellowship or union with Christ; in this sense it is joined to the following words and phrases: “ (Bold Mine italics original)

    The NWT gives the full and clearer English idea of what the original language conveyed.

  9. Ben1957 says:

    Sorry for the repeat of posts. I saw mistakesand tried to edit the posts to fix them. Evidently I can not do that. So again sorry for the repeats

  10. Ben1957 says:

    In reply to
    Judah Maccabee 
    March 11, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    In Colossians 1:16-20 the word “OTHER” must be inserted according to the context. If it is not inserted that that means (according to the context of that chapter) that Jesus created the Father.

    The KJV reads at verse 16 “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him”

    The first thing here is the word “by”. It is the Greek word en which earlier was argued by you that it means in. Notice part of the meaning that Strongs gives which is what the KJV translators picked up on and that is the word “ instrumentality”. So what the first part of that verse is saying “for by the instrumentality of Jesus God created ” Or Jesus was the instrument that God used in creation.

    Now it is this next portion that is extremely important, “ all things created, that are in heaven”. So by the instrumentality of Jesus God created ALL things in heaven.

    Now if we take the KJV rendering and the general understanding we have a problem Here it is again ““For by him were all things created, that are in heaven,” If we are to believe that Jesus on his own created ALL things IN HEAVEN then that means Jesus created the Father, for where is the abode of the Father?

    Back in verse 3 we see two distinct personalities being addressed as per the KJV “ We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,”

    We have GOD who is said to be the FATHER OF (by use of the conjugation and) Jesus.

    By inserting the word “other” it tells us that Jesus did not create the father.

    Also in verse 15 it tells us Jesus is a PART of creation. “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” The Greek word “prototokos” that is rendered as “firstborn” can mean pre-eminent one. Now in the Bible the firstborn or pre-eminent one is always a apart of the group that they are the firstborn or pre-eminent one OF . So verse 15 is telling us that Jesus is the pre-eminent one and the firstborn one OF the group called creation.

    Here is an example from the Book of Acts where the KJV adds the word “other” to complete the sense in English. The KJV uses italics to indicate an added word. If other was not added here the casual reader would not know that Peter was an apostle of the Christ.

    Acts 5:29 “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” (underline mine italic original)

    Without the added word “other” this verse says ““Then Peter and the apostles”. The conjunction “and” separates Peter from the group known as apostles, but we all know that Peter was an apostles so with that knowledge the word “other” had been inserted to make it clear to the casual reader that Peter was indeed one of the chosen apostles.

    According to the context then, the NWT is correct in adding the word “other”. However I do agree that the brackest should have remained in all casses of where words added to correct the sense in English

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

applications-education-miscellaneous.png

Comment posting guidelines:

Kindly observe the following requirements before posting any comments to our articles or pages:


  • ABUSIVE COMMENTS - Do not post comments that include swear words or may be considered abusive, lewd, blasphemous, obscene or threatening
  • ILLEGAL COMMENTS - Do not post comments that condone or propose illegal activity, or that breach copyright law
  • OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS - Do not post comments that are off-topic and bear no relation to the page or article
  • RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY - Do not post comments that are evangelical in nature or may be construed as imposing one person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) over those of another
  • LANGUAGE - Visitors from all countries and language groups are welcome. You may post comments in languages other than English, but we would appreciate if you could make any such comments brief. We would also be grateful if you could run any such comments through Google Translate and convert these to English, but this is not an absolute requirement.
  • LINKS - You may post links to third party websites, so long as (1) you limit these to 2 links per comment, and (2) the content on these links doesn't contravene ANY of the first four points. Specifically, you may not post URLs to websites that are evangelical in nature. Our links page has an extensive list of such sites for any who are curious about Christian beliefs in the context of Jehovah's Witnesses.

JWSurvey.org thanks all visitors in advance for respectfully observing these guidelines. Any who persistently fail to do so, despite warnings, may find themselves blocked from making further comments at the discretion of the site moderators, whose decision will be final and not open for debate.