Jehovah’s Witnesses – The new world translation

Posted by on May 17, 2009

This post follows my previous one which focuses on who Jesus claimed and demonstrated himself to be.

Why does the New World translation take pains to switch words? Obeisance rather than worship (Matt 14:25-33, Luke 24:52, Matt 28:16-17, John 9:35-39)?  Nobody uses the word Obeisance – not now, and not back in 1984 when the edition I was reading was revised.  There is only one reason why this word was used – to obfuscate or hide the meaning of the original word and the intention of the original author.  This is also why John 1:1 has translated the way it has (“the word was a god”)- to hide the authors clear fact that Jesus is fully God (as it is translated in the NET version).

This illustrates a key point: you can know the Bible back to front (as many Jehovah’s Witnesses do) and yet not know the living Word (John 1:14, Matt 7:23).

The New World translation is the work of the devil working to lead people to hell by deceiving them into thinking that they can be religious and be safe from the punishment of the wicked, when in reality they are rejecting the very means of salvation, and ignoring the fact that they cannot ever save themselves. No body is 100% righteous (Rom 3:10) – and that is the standard that we must meet in order to be saved.  Righteousness is only available in Jesus Christ, and it is only available in Jesus Christ because He is God incarnate.  If he were not God incarnate, his death would be worthless (we mere humans were born in sin – something that Jesus doesn't share with us because He is not merely human) and there would be no hope – and indeed we likely would not be here at all.

Not only is the new world translation the devils work, but the entire Jehovah’s Witness movement is also a key tool used to make people religious and lead them directly to hell without Christ and without God. Furthermore, this applies equally to Mormonism, since it essentially does the same thing both with the person of Jesus and the method of salvation. Both Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses have revived an ancient heresy that was thrown out in the fourth century.  A heresy known as Arianism – which serves to undermine the person and the work of Jesus Christ.  In other words Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses are the old heresy wrapped in new clothes.  At the end of the day their method of salvation relies on works, which is the very doctrine that the Catholic church (officially at least) also relies on.

And as for the claim of the Jehovah’s Witness my friends were dealing with that their translation is based on “better manuscripts”, I have three responses.  1) Define “better”.  It looks to me like pains have been taken to select manuscripts that vary from the original in key places as it doesn’t line up with what scholars believe represents the best available representation of the original.  2) Given the translation I was using was done in 1984 (more likely 1961) and there have been a number of significant manuscript discoveries since then (see the latest discoveries here), this is simply a claim that cannot be maintained 25 years (never mind almost 50 years) later when new literal translations are available that are based on earlier (and more accurate) manuscripts. 3) Finally (and most importantly), what good is the best manuscripts if they are translated to say something different to the original author, or where words are used to hide the real meaning (see the section on obeisance above)?  For further reading there is some interesting criticism on Wikipedia.

To be sure the area of Bible scholarship is a difficult one, however, when there are so many good translations available today, why work with something like this except for the purpose of holding to a form of godliness but denying its power?

Philosophy, Theology
  • Jeanine

    I agree that JW’s and Mormon’s have deceived many by misrepresenting Jesus Christ. You stated in your article, "It looks to me like pains have been taken to select manuscripts that vary from the original in key places as it doesn’t line up with what scholars believe represents the best available representation of the original."

    Do you know which manuscript they take their translation from, and where does it vary from the original? I’m asking for my own clarification.

  • darryl

    I spent a little time looking for that information but wasn’t able to locate a reliable source sorry.

  • darryl

    To be precise I couldn’t find the manuscripts they used. I did however find this (http://www.evangelicalbible.com/jw.htm) that lists a series of differences

  • John

    There isn’t much wrong with the manuscripts in the NWT. There is probably only one or two cases where choosing a particular manuscript helps them out a tiny bit.

    There’s been enough misunderstanding over time between Catholics and protestants that it is important to get terminology right. I know of no Roman Catholic dogmatic statement that says that we are saved by works. Or even for that matter that we are saved partially by works. No doubt there are Catholic documents that say things about works you disagree with, but I don’t think that is one of them.

  • John

    To answer previous question – NWT is mostly based on the Wescott Hort text. There is nothing really wrong with that text, most of the controversies are translational. The ASV and RV were also based on that text.

  • Jeanine

    Thanks, that’s a great reference.

  • darryl

    Hi John,

    My comment about catholicism is based on the bull from the council of trent. The bull says:
    "If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema." (see http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html for the full text including the above snippet)

    To me that looks like they reject salvation by grace alone by faith alone, which leaves you with a works based salvation.

    To my knowledge this decree of the catholic church has never been overturned. Wikipedia seems to confirm this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_by_Faith#Sola_fide)

    Thanks for your notes on the manuscripts of the NWT – do you have some links that I can read more from?

  • John

    The only case I know of where the NWT appears to pick manuscripts based on theology is John 14:14 John 14:14(NASB) “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.". The Me is omitted in the NWT, though it really should be there if it wants to be based on the WH text or the old manuscripts. But I guess we can’t complain too much since the KJV and the majority of manuscripts omit it too.

    Being saved by X is not quite the same as being justified by X, at least it isn’t to everybody.

    What Catholics would say is that we need to be saved from our sins. We don’t need to be saved from our acts of righteousness. With God’s grace we can become more righteous over time, but what we need saving from is our sins, and that is purely by grace.

    Part of the complexity of the situation is the bible does talk in those terms that we can become more righteous in our actions. 1John 3:7 the one who practices righteousness is righteous. James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works? Mt 5:20 unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Luke 1:6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

    The even deeper difficulty is the underlying assumptions about the gospel. Substitutionary and penal substitution is a relative latecomer on the historical scene. In the protestant mind the gospel revolves around a cosmic courtroom drama. The Father sits on high as judge, jury and executioner, and thundering down the question of why we should be saved being as we are such sinners. The correct answer to give is that we wish to transfer our punishment due onto Christ, whereby we can pass unscathed into heaven. Once this courtroom drama is firmly entrenched in your mind, the only important factor in the salvation story is the correct method to transfer our punishment onto Christ and be saved.

    But historically the church hasn’t seen things through the story of the great courtroom drama. The Jews gave sacrifices as an atonement for their sins, but it wasn’t about God punishing the sacrifice in place of themselves. Some of the sacrifices were grain offerings, but grain can’t be punished. The church was seeing things in terms of the parable of the prodigal son. The Father loves the son and wants him back and healed. He’s not wanting to punish the son looking for someone else to take his vengeance out on. He gives his son as an atonement for sin, not because he needs a substitute to take out his wrath on, but because he loves the world. The end goal is not resolving the courtroom drama, but to defeat death. John 12:23 "I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." Undoing the mortality inflicted by Adam and restoring man to union with God is the great drama.

    In this drama, God is the great physician, not so much the wrathful judge. He sends his Son to call people to righteousness so that they may be healed. The story that is played out is God helping people to become righteous, even though Christ’s atonement is there for us when we fall. 1John 2:1 "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father".

    If you see God as the physician (cf Luke 5:31 “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick), and not as the hanging judge, then the question of whether God is meeting any success in his plan in making us righteous in our works needs an answer in the affirmative, or else God’s plan is failing. (Rom. 2:6 God “will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.)" If God isn’t making people righteous, (real righteousness, not just forensic), then he isn’t saving them. In this drama, to doubt God is helping to make people righteous, is to doubt the Gospel and the great physician. God’s grace in helping to make people righteous is how he saves them.

    This emphasis in the early church is partly explained by the church’s emphasis on the Gospel narratives which are focused on Jesus’ call of sinners to repentance and to righteousness. That’s the glasses through which it viewed Paul, and not vice versa. The end result is union with God, and to become like God. That’s where God wants to take us rather than sliding out of the court dock as merely acquitted.

    Trent is somewhat inheriting this line of thinking. Which to get back to the original point, why it is important to use the right terms. Being saved by works and being justified by works are not the same. And even within the term "justified by works" there are a whole lot of issues that the phrase can’t just stand alone. Being as James states that in the affirmative, it would have to be qualified suitably to make the distinction you want to make.

  • darryl

    John,

    Much of what you say I agree with, but I strongly disagree with your statement "The Jews gave sacrifices as an atonement for their sins, but it wasn’t about God punishing the sacrifice in place of themselves" and your general rejection of penal substitutionary atonement.

    You quoted 1 John 2:1, but left out 1 John 2:2 which says "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world" – if you reject penal substitutionary atonement and the fact that God did not exact his vengance (wrath for sin previously committed) on Christ, then what do you regard propitiation as? And if "we wish to transfer our punishment due onto Christ" – what does this mean if there is no wrath involved?

    Much of what you say is right, but as it stands it represents (at best) half the truth, but then again, I suspect you are coming at this from a Catholic standpoint?

  • John

    In pagan literature, ἱλαστήριον (what you translate propitiation) is any kind of sacrifice to the gods. I don’t think the pagans were specifically thinking in terms of an animal needing to substitute for punishment due to them.

    In the Greek old testament, ἱλαστήριον is the word used to translate the "mercy seat". The New Testament writers are so steeped in the Greek old testament its hard to separate the word from its usage in the old testament.

    Christ’s death pays for our sins. But it needn’t be thought of in terms of God needing to belt the hell out of someone, so he beats up Christ instead of us. And it doesn’t need to be thought of as a court room setting, which probably was a foreign setting to someone like Abraham. (whose near sacrifice of his son was a prefigurement of Christ)

    I didn’t want to give the impression that wrath has no place in the picture, because it does. But the reason he sent his Son was because of his love for the world. The father of the prodigal son is looking out to the horizon longing for the son to come home. By thinking so dogmatically in terms of God as judge needing a substitute person to punish for naughty sinners, it heavily obscures God as loving father, if he can only can bare to look at us if he pretends to be looking at Christ.

    So what Christ is doing is redeeming mankind from what holds mankind hostage, which is sin, death and the devil. It’s not God holding us hostage, so it isn’t necessarily God who needs to receive the payment. Heb. 2:14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil"

    It’s the power of death that Christ redeems us from, not just God’s wrath.

    I’m Eastern Orthodox. In the Orthodox liturgy, the hymn goes "by death he trampled down death". A cross in the Russian tradition (http://quickigifts.com/converts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=36) has a skull at the bottom to symbolise Christ "trampling down death".

    "Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, He also Himself assumed the same, in order that through death He might bring to nought Him that hath the power of death, that is to say, the Devil, and might rescue those who all their lives were enslaved by the fear of death. For by the sacrifice of His own body He did two things: He put an end to the law of death which barred our way; and He made a new beginning of life for us, by giving us the hope of resurrection. By man death has gained its power over men; by the Word made Man death has been destroyed and life raised up anew. That is what Paul says, that true servant of Christ: For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. Just as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,and so forth." – Athanasius, on the Incarnation

  • Ron Henzel

    My thoughts on penal substitution can be found here: http://midwestoutreach.org/blogs/the-lamb-that-was-slain.

  • darryl

    Ron,
    Thank you for the link. Your article is quite thorough and provides a good answer where time has prevented me from providing one.
    John,
    If you won’t accept this, no amount of arguing will change your mind, but I pray that the Spirit of Christ will.