An Example of one Web critic of the NWT !

              An Example of one Web critic of the NWT !

This is how one 'internet' critic of the NWT(and JW's)presents his arguments. Judge for your self if he is being reasonable or has proved his contentions. Everything you see has been unedited and is in order of sent/received so you will come across some 'repeats'. We have decided to make this 'discussion' public as it shows the mindset of one who has made a public stand against the NWT(and the Jehovah's Witnesses generally) and hence will enlighten and instruct the reader of such sites as he hosts and so reveal the real motivation behind such criticisms:

---

Dear Sir I have read that which you have written re NWT and John 1:1. Also what Bible we used prior to 1950. I am in the middle of creating my own website, 'A Defence of The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.' There you will find answers to your questions. I have to say however you did not present anything substantial or that which could not be answered. I will give you the URL address of the above when it is up and running. In the meantime if you have any questions re the NWT let me know. Agape ...................

There is no answer that you could possibly give me that would justify that little letter 'A' in John 1:1. I have read all your gobble de gook of the Greek you people espouse to try and justify it. Lets face it JW's changed the Bible to suit their false teaching. The book even tells that changes were made, "We rendered...." That means to change. There are so many errors in that book, it is pathetic. When you change one verse it leads to an avalanche of contradictions.
Who is the savior??? Ask any JW and he will say Jehovah and him only. Well I will list only one blatant error right out of your own book, Luke 2:11... Now just who is the savior???
Your group teaches to divorce yourselves from the world as it is satanic. Well, sir, I submit you are being disobedient by participating in a 'satanic' internet.

One more thing, why doesn't your main JW website have an email address??? All other religions do. What are they afraid of???

Dear ...................,   It appears that you have made up your mind. If you have read what the NWT Translation Committee has said on why it has translated  passages a certain way and you still feel as you do then that's fine. We all have to make choices, informed ones hopefully. You say "we" have "changed" the Bible and we even admit that by using the word "rendered", which you say means "changed." Sorry, but any good English dictionary will inform you that the word "render" can mean to "translate." This is the meaning that should be accepted when you read the comments of the NWTTC when they use it. To do otherwise is clearly being uncharitable and plainly incorrect. If you pick up both a NIV and a NRSV and look at the prefaces you should be able to see that they too "rendered," their word, certain words/phrases. Bruce Metzger used the word in the latter's preface. Will you be levelling the same charge at the NIV and the NRSV/Metzger now? No doubt other translator's have used the same word too. By using that word they mean 'how they have translated.' So I'm sorry, but I cannot feel the force of your point here against the NWT. Indeed, you appear to be confused with a simple English term and it's meaning. One wonders how you can make any judgement at all. I do not wish to be unkind but really! If you ask me, a JW, who is the Saviour, I would immediately think of Acts 4:12. Whether the JW site has an e-mail address or not you are just huffing and puffing by what you insinuate. Getting back to John 1:1. Your remarks appear to indicate you are not well read. When my webpages are published you would do well to read them. If you wish to discuss this one passage I'm more than willing to do so. If you do not wish to discuss I would not infer that you are frightened of anything. You will have your good reasons and I should allow you to have them. If we did discuss would you like it to be published on the web? I have plenty of space for it. It might make for good reading for others. Agape ....................... . 

I just brought up one example. There are changes all the way through that book to support your teaching.

2Pet 1:1, 'the' added just before to show 2 persons instead of one
Isa 43:2, "For I am Jehovah your GOD, the Holy One of Israel, YOUR SAVIOR."
How many saviors are there? Are you saying Acts 4:12 says Christ is? Jehovah says he is. The book says Christ is. Which way is it? You cant have both.

How about Tit 1:3, "...under command of our SAVIOR,GOD" (with a capital 'G')
Sir you just brought up Acts in which it says Jesus Christ is the Savior. Now Titus says GOD is. WHICH WAY IS IT? ARE YOU SAYING THE SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST IS GOD????

Contradictions, conflicts, mistranslations, mishmash.

Col 1:16-17, the word 'other' added 3 times. Sir that is NOT in the Greek.
Gal 3:28, the word 'person' added. It is NOT in the Greek
Eph 2:2, 'the' added again.
Hebrews 1:8 butchered to suit your teaching.
Sir I could spend all day pointing out the errors in the nwt. It is the most dangerous book ever published and misleads thousands.

Only 144,000 to go to heaven??? I have had many JW's at my house. I invited them so I could learn what they teach. For 6 weeks the second person was higher up. Everyone I asked if they were one of the 144,000 said , yes, they have a ticket. I then pointed out that they are all male, all Jews, and all virgins. Not one of them fit the requirements, not even CT Russell.

How do you explain this, and just WHO is the savior....a name please???  

Dear .........,   You have said:    "There are changes all the way through that book[NWT] to support your teaching.

2Pet 1:1, 'the' added just before to show 2 persons instead of one."   If you will get yourself a NRSV you will see that 2Pet 1:1 has a foot-note. It reads   "Or of our God and the Saviour" (emphasis mine)   Bruce Metzger states in the preface, "In both testaments, alternative renderings of the text are indicated by the word "Or." Likewise, the footnote in the NAB says: "The words translated our God and saviour Jesus Christ could aslo be rendered "our God and the saviour Jesus Christ." (See also Translator's New Testament note.)   So the translation of 2 Pet.1:1 is an acceptable one.(note also the use of the word "rendered." You have yet to admit your mistake in that matter!)   Translations that agree with the NWT here are:   The New Testament in Modern Speech-Weymouth; The American Standard Version.  Did the above two translations "change" 2P.1:1 to support a JW's "teaching"? Have you not maligned the scholarship of all the above with your shallow charge against the NWT here.   What about your remark that "Hebrews 1:8 butchered to suit your[JW] teaching."   Has the following also "butchered" Hebrews 1:8? (What book have you been reading?)   Are you saying that Goodspeed, Moffatt and Byington has "butchered" it aswell. They translated it as the NWT has done. And what of the Twentieth Century N.T. Translation and the alternatives given in the RSV and the NEB? What of A.T.Robertson's admission. "God is your throne' or 'Thy throne is God.' Either makes good sense." See also Bishop Westcott's commentary where he favours a translation as found in the NWT.   Goodness, how many translators/scholars you have just accused of "butchery"! ! !   If this goes on like this our discussion will be just right for publishing. If you stand by these remarks of yours that is? Do you still? As regards how many saviours there are. The Bible shows that both the Father, God AND Jesus Christ are Saviours. The relationship of the two in this is well put by Jude in v.25, who says "to the only God our Saviour , through Jesus our Lord..."   You also state: "Sir I could spend all day pointing out the errors in the nwt. It is the most dangerous book ever published and misleads thousands."   If there are so many "errors" and is the "most dangerous book ever published", that it "misleads" thousands how could A.S.Duthie, in his book, recommend for study of the "original languages" either the New American Standard or the New World Translation? -How To Choose Your Bible Wisely, Paternoster Press, 1995. p.225.   The more you speak the less I am convinced you have really looked into these matters well. You seem hell-bent on stating your case with little or no proof and not letting trivial things like the facts get in your way!   Agape ................     
 

You wrote

Dear .........., You have said:  "There are changes all the way through that book[NWT] to support your teaching.
2Pet 1:1, 'the' added just before to show 2 persons instead of one." If you will get yourself a NRSV you will see that 2Pet 1:1 has a foot-note.It reads "Or of our God and the Saviour" (emphasis mine)

Sir I do not find truth in footnotes. They are merely the personal opinion of the writer. The original Greek is the truth and the Greek word for 'the' IS SIMPLY NOT THERE.

  Bruce Metzger states in the preface, "In both testaments, alternative renderings of the text are indicated by the word "Or." Likewise, the footnote in the NAB says: "The words translated our God and saviour Jesus Christ could aslo be rendered "our God and the saviour Jesus Christ."(See also Translator's New Testament note.) So the translation of 2 Pet.1:1 is an acceptable one.(note also the use of the word "rendered" -you have yet to admit your mistake in that matter!) 

RENDERED IS A WORD YOUR NWT USES SIR, NOT I. IT PLAINLY SAYS THE WORD 'LORD' WAS CHANGED TO JEHOVAH OVER 6000 TIMES.

 Translations that agree with the NWT here are: The New Testament in Modern Speech-Weymouth The American Standard Version Did the above two translations "change" 2P.1:1 to support a JW's "teaching"? Have you not maligned the scholarship of all the above with your shallow charge against the NWT here. What about your remark that "Hebrews 1:8 butchered to suit your[JW] teaching." Has the following also "butchered" Hebrews 1:8? (What book have you been reading?)

YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT SIR. READ THE KJ OR THE DOUAY, BIBLES WHICH HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS.
  Are you saying that Goodspeed, Moffatt and Byington has "butchered" it aswell. They translated it as the NWT has done. And what of the Twentieth Century N.T. Translation and the alternatives given in the RSV and the NEB? What of A.T. Robertson's admission. "God is your throne' or 'Thy throne is God.' Either makes good sense." See also Bishop Westcott's commentary where he favours a translation as found in the NWT. Goodness, how many translators/scholars you have just accused of "butchery"! ! ! If this goes on like this our discussion will be just right for publishing. If you stand by these remarks of yours that is? Do you still?

I DO NOT GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO 'PUBLISH' ANYTHING I HAVE SAID. EMAIL IS PERSONAL, NOT FOR PUBLIC USE UNLESS AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES. YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. I STAND BEHIND EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID.

HERE, I HAVE REWRITTEN ONE OF MY FILES JUST FOR YOU
 
 As regards how many saviours there are.The Bible shows that both the Father,God AND Jesus Christ are Saviours.The relationship of the two in this is well put by Jude,in v.25, who says "to the only God our Saviour , through Jesus our Lord..."

SIR, YOUR OTHER JW FRIENDS SAY IT IS JEHOVAH ONLY. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN ISA 43:11????  THE ONLY WAY TO EXPLAIN IT IS THAT JEHOVAH AND JESUS ARE ONE GOD.

INCONSISTENCIES ALL OVER THE PLACE.
HERE I REWROTE THIS FILE JUST FOR YOU. JUST WHO IS THE SAVIOR??????

  You also state: "Sir I could spend all day pointing out the errors in the nwt. It is the most dangerous book ever published and misleads thousands." If there are so many "errors" and is the "most dangerous book ever published", that it "misleads" thousands how could A.S. Duthie, in his book, recommend for study of the "original languages" either the New American Standard or the New World Translation???-How To Choose Your Bible Wisely, Paternoster Press, 1995. p.225.

WHO IS HE, ANOTHER JW? HE HAS NO SAY OF THE TRUTH. IT IS NOTHING BUT AN OPINION

  The more you speak the less I am convinced you have really looked into these matters well. You seem hell-bent on stating your case with little or no proof and not letting trivial things like the facts get in your way! [signed....] 

"..........,   You correctly said, "Col 1:16-17, the word 'other'[in NWT] added 3 times. Sir that is NOT in the Greek."   May I ask you to compare the Greek and the KJV at Acts 5:29.   The KJV reads there: "Then Peter and the other apostles....."   If you examine the Greek, the word "other" is "simply not there."   May I ask your opinion then why the KJV(which you asked me to consider due to it's age) used the word "other" here?    Another "the" in the KJV which is "simply not in the Greek"-see Romans 7:25. See for yourself. I can supply many more if you wish? If it is "simply" the case that an English word should not be supplied when it does not occur in the Greek why does the KJV(and ALL other translations) do so many times over? Please answer. [signed........]

I am not talking about Acts sir, COLOSSIANS. Everytime people like you have no answers you like to pull a switch somewhere else. My question is Colossians????

Oh??? What translations.

You do not give answers sir only, "Little Jimmy did it dad, so why cant I"???
Sir I do not deal in opinions, facts ONLY, and no finger pointing, "They did it (although you do not qualify who 'they' are) so why cant we? Two lies do not make a truth sir. I asked you specific questions about the NWT and all you can do is switch and dodge and quote footnotes. The Greek text does not support  the NWT translation. In that verse the Father plainly calls the Son GOD, but of course your 'teaching' does not agree with that, so "let us change the Bible." Too bad you cannot go back and change the Greek also, because it supports what a lie the NWT is. Your translators were NOT Jehovah as your documentation says. They were mere men, NONE OF WHICH KNEW GREEK. Don't take my word for it, check it yourself. Stick to the facts and quit pointing fingers at unnamed others. Sir, you have no facts. You cannot prove that NWT translation of Hebrews or any other book from the Greek. That makes the NWT a false translation, a corrupted bible. Go to the Greek for the truth.

Because of you, I am rewriting my main JW file. I have a lot more to say, and, unlike you, I have the facts. It will not be finished until I have added much more, but here is a preview. I am sure you will enjoy what scripture says about Jude, and of your selective 'rendering' (your term for 'changed', remember?) of verses in the New Testament.

The Greek word for 'lord' is consistent throughout the NT sir, so why is there the selective 'rendering' by your Watchtower Society to pathetically try and prove that Jesus Christ is not GOD?

And you seem to forget that the false word 'Jehovah' did not even exist in biblical times. It is a man made word from the 13th century. I have shown this from another of my files, and it is taken from your very own 'Aid to Bible Understanding' of which I have a copy on hand.

Your failure to answer my questions rings loudly.

Isa 43:11....remember??? No answers again??? I will refresh your memory, "IAM JEHOVAH, AND BESIDES ME THERE IS NO SAVIOR."

You told me there are 2 saviors, Jehovah and Jesus Christ. you are as inconsistent as your corrupt NWT.

You have no answers, just like all those JWs who came to my house over a 6 week period. They had no answers either and so they quit coming because of it. Even the top man, who came last, had no answers just like you.

I have wasted enough of my time on you. I have too many truths to attract my attention and have spent enough time on the JW lie.

I have already overstepped what the Bible says I must do, so I am placing you in Titus 3:9-11 as it fits you and all JW's perfectly.

Oh by the way, it is well known that family and peer pressure keep JW's in line. The horror stories I have heard of what happens to a JW, who escapes the Watchtower lie, by friends and family are so very true. How can a 'loving' family disown one of their own???

 Apparently very easily in JW's. Sounds like the Gestapo in a way.

It a real waste when people like you would rather propagate the JW lie rather than search for the truth.

Goodbye

PS. YOU DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO PUBLISH THIS ON A WEBSITE. BTW YOU NEVER DID ANSWER WHY YOU ARE ON THE 'SATANIC' INTERNET THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO AVOID. I KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE AS I HAVE ASKED JWS AND THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE TOLD ME. YOU ARE NOT EVEN OBEDIENT TO YOUR OWN MASTERS.

"........ If the word "other" should not be "added" or supplied to Colossians 1:16ff because you have said it is "simply not there" then it was cogent of me to show that there are places where translations(inc. KJV)and translators HAVE "added" an English word not found in the Greek to bring out a meaning IMPLIED in the original. I am directly addressing your remarks which you seem incapable of understanding. If you wish to have an in depth discussion of Colossian 1:15 ff I'm up for it. You have yet to answer why the KJV (and others) has "added"(not wrongly)English words not found in the Greek. According to your "rule" this should not happen at all. Hence my reference to Acts 5:29 and other places where this happens. Please address the issue of your own "rule". Then we can proceed to specific passages i.e. Col.1. [Signed]  

........,You correctly said, "Col 1:16-17, the word 'other'[in NWT] added 3 times. Sir that is NOT in the Greek." May I ask you to compare the Greek and the KJV at Acts 5:29. The KJV reads there: "Then Peter and the other apostles....." If you examine the Greek, the word "other" is "simply not there." May I ask your opinion then why the KJV(which you asked me to consider due to it's age) used the word "other" here? Another "the" in the KJV which is "simply not in the Greek"-see Romans 7:25. See for yourself. I can supply many more if you wish? If it is "simply" the case that an English word should not be supplied when it does not occur in the Greek why does the KJV(and ALL other translations) do so many times over? Please answer.[signed]

.......  You said, "Oh??? What translations.

You do not give answers sir only, "Little Jimmy did it dad, so why cant I"???

Sir I do not deal in opinions, facts ONLY, and no finger pointing, "They did it (although you do not qualify who 'they' are) so why cant we? Two lies do not make a truth sir. I   If you had read my previous mail to you you should know that I quoted three translations, aswell as A.T. Robertson and Bishop Westcott. By your remark above you have called these translations/translators/scholars LIARS. If you bother to read Westcott's commentary you will be able to see why he favours the rendering as found in the NWT. REASONS ARE GIVEN. The translation of Heb.1:8 that does not apply the term "theos" to the Son were not made on a whim. They are TRANSLATIONS THAT ARE VALID, BASED ON AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORIGINAL GREEK GRAMMATCAL CONSTRUCTIONS aswell as the purpose the author used his quotations. If you believe otherwise you are naive.WHY IS NOT THE RENDERING AS FOUND IN THE KJV NOT AN OPINION of men also? I could just aswell say to you(re KJV) -"They did it so why can't I(Bob Stanley)".You are making alot of noise but nothing else.Your analogy is pathetic. The NWTTC gives REASONS why it has translated Heb.1:8 the way it did. You have to address these REASONS. You have not done so. I only gave you the opening of my page re Heb.1:8. You will have to visit it see see the rest. When it is uploaded I will e-mail you the URL address. I'm quite happy for others to compare mine with yours!   You said: "Your translators were NOT Jehovah as your documentation says. They were mere men, NONE OF WHICH KNEW GREEK. Don't take my word for it, check it yourself. Stick to the facts and quit pointing fingers at unnamed others. Sir, you have no facts. You cannot prove that NWT translation of Hebrews or any other book from the Greek. That makes the NWT a false translation, a corrupted bible. Go to the Greek for the truth".   You have yet to say why could a scholar A.S. Duthie say that for a study of the original languages one could use the NWT. I gave you here a name and a reference. He is not a JW. He is qualified to say what he did. He alone proves that your words are the rantings of someone possessed. I can give others. At the present time you have not given me why the Greek should be read this way and not another way. Note that v.9 shows that the Son HAS a God. This fact indicates that the God spoken of in v.8 would be the Father also. Compare Rev.3:12 where he calls God HIS God("my God.") If you read Westcott he does "go to the Greek." I also suspect that those translations I HAVE ALREADY CITED 'went to the Greek'. They went to the Greek and did NOT apply God to the Son at Heb.1:8. Were not these translators knowledgeable Greek scholars? Why don't you inform your readers that the NWT is not alone in translating Heb.1:8 the way they did? Please answer. Why don't you read Buchanans translation and commentary on Hebrews in the Anchor Bible series. He DOES apply theos to the Son at Heb.1:8. But he still wrote that did not make the Son God himself. Read what he says and digest.   You said "And you seem to forget that the false word 'jehovah' did not even exist in biblical times. It is a man made word from the 13th century. I have shown this from another of my files, and it is taken from your very own 'Aid to Bible Understanding' of which I have a copy on hand."   I have forgotten nothing. I did point out to you that the KJV used JEHOVAH 4 times. The ASV nearly 7000 times. There are other translations that do likewise. The English form of the divine name JEHOVAH is found on coins, in church's, in hymns. Why don't you read the following. It might educate you some: "On the Use of the Word Jehovah in Translating the Old Testament"-F.B. Denio. JBL(1927),147-149. Tell me when you have read it. Tell me what you think. Or will you keep your eyes closed yet? What do you think the name JESUS means. Let Weymouth the NT translator tell you. He is not a JW so you can believe him. He said, "Jesus,' is seen in the original Yehoshua.' which means 'Jehovah is Salvation.'" JE=Jehovah, SUS=of Salvation. So every time .....you say Jesus you are using and supporting the English form of the divine name Jehovah!!!! You have again failed to address the point I made about how the tetragrammaton should be translated. Not by a common noun like Lord which there is a seperate Hebrew word for.   You said "Your failure to answer my questions rings loudly.
Isa 43:11....remember??? No answers again??? I will refresh your memory, "IAM JEHOVAH, AND BESIDES ME THERE IS NO SAVIOR."

You told me there are 2 saviors, Jehovah and Jesus Christ. you are as inconsistent as your corrupt NWT.

You have no answers, just like all those JWs who came to my house over a 6 week period. They had no answers either and so they quit coming because of it. Even the top man, who came last, had no answers just like you."   You seem incapable of seeing that others-I gave you an example-can be a saviour and not be Jehovah. You have failed again to address a cogent point I made. Re-read my mail and answer my point if you can. Is Othniel spoken of as a saviour-Yes or No? Obviously you are unable to comprehend this simple point or Is.43:11.     You end by saying: Goodbye
PS. YOU DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO PUBLISH THIS ON A WEBSITE. BTW YOU NEVER DID ANSWER WHY YOU ARE ON THE 'SATANIC' INTERNET THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO AVOID. I KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE AS I HAVE ASKED JWS AND THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE TOLD ME. YOU ARE NOT EVEN OBEDIENT TO YOUR OWN MASTERS   I'm not surprised you do not want your correspondence with me to go public. I'd be ashamed of your ignorance, unreasonableness and predjuced blinkered veiws too. As to this "satanic internet" where did the WTB&TS say JW's CANNOT go onto the WWW? Again, you cite no references for me to check up your noise.  

[signed]

I just might publish it any way. I am certainly not afraid of your lame threats. Who is "frightened" now? 

Thanks for prodding me to update one of my JW files. Here is my latest update on one of them. I am sure you will love it, especially the part about why your cult changed only some of  the words 'Lord' in the NT to Jehovah. Why only some and not all? If not all, then why any??? After all, the Greek word is the same throughout, so to maintain harmony it is change all or change none.. I guess I will never know why the NWT never did follow the Greek underlying all normal bible translations, except as I have mentioned before that not one person in the NWT translation committee knew Greek. This is documented quite well you know, in the trial minutes of some of the officers of the WTS. It must be the vanity of the WTS. I am sure you cannot answer these questions either so dont bother to try. I really do not read files which have no facts, only charges, and innuendos, and no truth whatsoever. That is all I ever received from you, so your email will be automatically trashed. BTW, the file is still not finished. I have much more to add. This will become a huge file. Just keep going back to the website and not to me, as I will not read anymore from you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had visited his webpage and found the following among other rash uses of scripture:

"Who will send the Holy Spirit?
John 14:26 - Jehovah will.
John 16:7 - Jesus Christ will"

This being an attempt to show that Jesus is Jehovah

I e-mailed him this to which he did not reply:

"........., You say on that web page of yours:  

Who will send the Holy Spirit?
John 14:26 - Jehovah will.
John 16:7 - Jesus Christ will.   From this are you trying to prove that Jesus is Jehovah? You have failed to if you did!   In the first Jesus says that the "Father" will send the holy spirit. In the second Jesus says he will.   From this do you believe that the Father is the Son and the Son the Father? That's how it reads to me! This would make you a Modalist!   [signed]"

Of course,[this gentleman]had also failed to recognise the import of the words ,"...the Father will send [the helper]in my[the Son's]name,..." Hence the two scriptures have been used in vain by this critic's webpage!

END OF DISCUSSION

Note: I used the word "frightened" because it was his word, he using "afraid" against the WTB&TS-so I used it against him. As for answering all his contentions and charges. I originally wanted to bring up for discussion John 1:1. But his response was little short of a tirade-as I hope you can see for yourself. I have published this e-mail discussion because of his threats and I believe that such a person who creates such a website as he has done should be challenged. There is not much here that you could not read on his website anyway--with the exception of my response of course. He even asks for a response from a Jehovah's Witness on that very website. This is one response. Notice though that the response I was offering he decided he would "trash." Another reason that that which was 'discussed' between us should be published. In regard to his charge that JW's beliefs contradict the clear statement in Isaiah 43:11--Jehovah being the 'only' saviour. Of course, what this critic fails to understand is that though Jehovah is the only source of true salvation, the scriptures do apply the word saviour to others, like Othniel and Jesus, because they were sent by Jehovah as the means of salvation(Jesus said he was "sent" "dispatched"-John 5:36-43)and could therefore properly be described as saviours without contradicting, even being in harmony with, Isaiah 43:11. According to Simeon, who had the holy spirit upon him, the Christ, Jesus, is indeed the 'means' that Jehovah will 'save,' for he said as recorded for us by Luke; "Now Sovereign Lord[Jehovah], you are letting your slave go free in peace according to your declaration; because my eyes have seen your[Jehovah's]means of saving..."-Luke 2:29, 30. Notice what Simeon has said. Jehovah, the "Sovereign Lord" is 'using' the Christ, Jesus, to "save." Jehovah is the source and the Christ Jesus is the means of Salvation. Both then are termed 'saviours.' The extent of the salvation which comes "through"(Jude.25) Jesus Christ, is, of course, toward the 'world of mankind' and not just Israel, so that "everyone exercising faith in him might.....have everlasting life."- John 3:16,17.

What of his charge that those who produced the NWT, "not one person in the NWT translation committee knew Greek." Please go to Is The New World Translation Biased page. It is strange therefore that this critic said, "Go to the Greek for the truth" yet he did not once refer to the Greek but more to the KJV and the Douay versions. What he seemed incapable of perceiving is that those translations I quoted, together with their footnotes, were, of course, based on the "Greek" and were the translations of scholars of the "Greek." What else could they be?

Don't e-mail him if you want a proper two-sided, balanced, reasoned discussion. You won't get one. You will not read one either on his website. I will not of course here provide a url address to his site. But his does come up on certain search engines. When you visit his site you will be able to make up your own mind of what merit his site contains.-Webmaster.