Part I 'Babylon Rebutted' -

 

'Babylon Rebutted' 

An Open Letter to a Catholic Critic

Part I

The following is an open letter to a one John Pacheco 'the Founder of the Apologists of St. Francis De Sales' Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, who somewhile ago had a private e-mail 'debate' with Dr Jason BeDuhn of the Department of Religious Studies, Indianapolis University(now of the Northern Arizona University.) This 'debate' (though Dr. BeDuhn was just 'discussing'!)was then posted by Pacheco and entitlted "Babylon's Rebuttal." The 'debate' focused on the quality of the New World Translation. If anyone has already read the exchange between the above two persons then they can make up their own minds whether the Dr had been 'rebutted' in his views on the correct way to understand and translate certain scriptures in the N.T.,which views happen to support some renderings as found in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. As is the case when someone is unfairly portrayed by those who posted their own comments on this exchange, there will be those who would like to speak up for the latter. Although Dr BeDuhn needs no 'defending' or has ever asked to be, the following open letter has sentiments that are shared by many others including ourselves. For this reason and this reason alone we are making this public. This letter has been contributed to this website by a fellow Jehovah's Witness and it speaks for itself. Before reading the following you would be best to read that 'debate' itself if you have not already done so, at 'Babylon's Rebuttal', wherein you can make up your own minds whether the Dr was himself "rebutted." Mr Pacheco, you must be forwarned, does "go on" a fair amount especially with his patristic quotations-Webmaster.

"Dear John Pacheco,

"I recently read the conversation between yourself and Jason BeDuhn that you have posted on the Internet.  To say the least, I found some of your arguments, as well as some of your criticisms of the New World Translation, a bit bewildering.  Even more bewildering was the response to your "Babylon's Rebuttal" by some trinitarians on various message boards.  I find it a little contradictory that those who fancy themselves to be "Christians" are so acerbic in their criticisms of Professor Jason BeDuhn.  Using words such as, "BeDuhn takes a beating", or "BeDuhn pummeled by Pacheco", or "BeDuhn KO'd by Catholic" hardly befits those who profess to having donned the garments of a Christ-like character.  Nor, in my opinion, did your words bear testimony to your claim of "speaking for Christianity".  Not to mention the fact that you posted professor BeDuhn's private email correspondence without his permission--an act which, in my opinion, does not speak very highly of your character.

"You must admit that you were fairly vicious in excoriating Professor BeDuhn for praising the KIT; and in doing so you have provided food for the never very balanced Anti-Witness community (not that this would bother you of course).  On the other hand, if one is discerning, and if one pays attention to the content of the discussion and not on your acerbic tone, it is evident that Prof. BeDuhn definitely had the better arguments.

 "I admit that it does rankle me though that this gentlemanly professor simply speaks the truth about the KIT and he is being attacked from every direction by anti-Witness fanatics.  It is a tremendous credit to Professor BeDuhn that he responded to your polemical diatribes with such a respectful manner.  Mr. Pacheco, many (trinitarians) feel that you had the upper hand in your discussion with professor BeDuhn, but that is only because they are not sensitive to subtle, respectful forms of argumentation.  We live in the age of Jesse Ventura, who is held as a hero.  We live in a time when a former WWF wrestler, with a jejune but gaping mouth, is revered and respected.  Society today is not sensitive to content, but to delivery; and the delivery people want is one of sarcasm and aggression.  That is the delivery you used in your discussion with professor BeDuhn.

"Now for a few points regarding your criticisms of the NWT.  You claimed that the NWT is a "faulty" translation because certain words are rendered in a way that you believe is "theologically biased."  You also asserted that "liberties" were taken by the translators.  For example, you stated:
 

• “Why is the NWT not consistent in translating ‘kyrios’ (kurion) as ‘Jehovah’ in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21”.  Again, Professor this is another ‘inconsistency’.  It is strange that all of the ‘inconsistencies’ of the NWT favour the JW view of Jesus not being equal to God, don’t you think?"
   

Yet, the Douay Version consistently favors trinitarian theology, does it not?  Two examples:
 

• • Titus 2:13,  "looking for the blessed hope and glorious coming of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ..."
    2Peter 1:1, "...equal privilege of faith with ourselves through the justice of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"
     

Those who read these verses in the Douay Version have no idea that they are disputed, even by trinitarians.  Only Greek grammarians and the especially studious have even the faintest idea that there is much debate on how these two verses should be translated; and that there are a number of translations that favor the NWT's rendering.  How many of the DV readers know that even the trinitarian Granville Penn said this regarding these texts:
 

• • "Some eminently pious and learned scholars...have so far over stretched the argument founded on the presence or absence of the article, as to have run it into a fallacious sophistry, and, in the intensity of their zeal to maintain the 'honor of the Son,' were not aware that they were rather engaged in 'dishonoring the Father.'" (Supplemental Annotations to the New Covenant, 146)
     

"I don't consider myself qualified to argue whether it is correct in every case that the Divine Name is found in the Christian Greek Scriptures in the NWT, but at least the reader knows why it was put there.  The appendix to the NWT has a discussion wherein they [the translators] make a full disclosure of their reasons for incorporating the divine name.  On the other hand, the DV and other translations have removed the name Jehovah from their translations.  The one name that is mentioned more than any other name in all of Scripture, simply deleted.  The name that Jesus Christ himself avowed to have "made known"--simply deleted.  It is my opinion that those who would do such a thing are guilty of unmitigated hubris.

"Additionally, the DV does not give the slightest indication that there is much debate as to how Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1:1 should be rendered; and the Jerusalem Bible, while supplying an explanatory footnote for Titus, does not provide such a footnote for 2Peter 1:1.  It is not a little misleading to charge the NWT translators with being "deceptive", when they are actually quite open about why they incorporated the Divine Name in the NT.  There is, however, some question regarding whether it is appropriate to withhold the pertinent information about how the words of Paul and Peter should be rendered.  And there is NO question that removing the one name that occurs more often then any other name is unjustified.  Since you claim to be disturbed by the so-called "inconsistencies" found in the NWT, why are you not equally disturbed by, or should I say, "consistent" in your criticisms of your own and various Protestant translations?
 

YOU ALSO SAID:
 

• "So, in other words, the JWs should have used ‘Lord’ to refer to both Jesus and God, and therefore, their translation is a faulty one.  What you are saying is that, in effect, IF you begin with the PRESUPPOSITION that Jesus was not God, THEN (and only then) is it legitimate to translate ‘kyrios’ as ‘Lord’ for Jesus and ‘Jehovah’ for God.  This is a classical CIRCULAR argument:"

  i) Jesus was not God.
  ii) The NWT is translated with this theological presupposition - hence the different translations of ‘kyrios’ - where ‘kyrios’ speaks about Jesus, it is translated ‘Lord’; where ‘kyrios’ speaks about God, it is translated ‘Jehovah’.
  iii) Why do Witnesses believe that Jesus was not God?  Because the NWT suggests that he wasn't!!!
   

"I had to chuckle at that one.  Is it not true that the translators of the DV, the JB, and various Protestant Bibles begin with the "presupposition" that Jesus IS God?  Is that not why the translators of the DV, the JB, and a host of Protestant Bibles prefer the trinitarian rendering of Titus 2:13; 2Peter 1:1, and many other disputed texts, when it is admitted that there is a question as to how they should be rendered?  Worse, regarding 1 John 5:7, was it not a "presupposition" on the part of the Catholic translators that motivated them to ADD words to the Bible that are not supported by the oldest manuscripts, and are now OMITTED by even mainstream trinitarian translations?  Notice the exceptional rendering of 1 John 5:7, which is found ONLY in the KJV, the NKJV and the DV:
 

• • • "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
       

"The hubris does not end with the simple insertion of a whole verse; notice this unbelievable footnote, found in the Douay Bible:
 

• • • "According to the evidence of many manuscripts, and the majority of commentators, these verses should read: "For there are three that bear witnesses: the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one."  The Holy See reserves to itself the right to pass finally on the origin of the present reading."
       

"The "Holy See" reserves the right to ALTER the Bible by ADDING an entire verse that the translators ADMIT WERE NOT IN THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS.  You said that the NWT's "inconsistencies favor the belief that Jesus is not God".  Well, do not the inconsistencies of the DV et al favor the belief that Jesus IS God?  If you wish to use such arguments to discredit the NWT, then you, by default, must discredit your own Church's favorite translations, for when it comes to using "presuppositions" to determine how various texts should be rendered, no one is more guilty than trinitarian translators.
 

THEN YOU SAID:
 

• • "The key is that ‘I am’ appears as the Greek renders it.  Once you start taking such liberty with Holy Writ, then you create a meaning which may restrict a reader’s interpretation of a passage as this one clearly does.  At least, ‘I am before Abraham was’ allows for both the traditional and JW interpretation.  The same cannot be said for the JW translation, ‘I have been before Abraham was.’  Indeed, the religious significance of  ‘I AM’ is lost in this translation, your dismissal of its ‘religious insignificance’ notwithstanding. "

"Taking liberties with Holy Writ?  I can show you OVER FORTY translations of the Bible, by trinitarians, that have favored the NWT rendering, at least in spirit.  Do you have any idea how many translators you've just charged with "taking liberties with Holy Writ"?  After all, if the NWTTC is guilty, then so are the MANY other trinitarian translators who have rendered John 8:58 in a similar way.  If you doubt my word, I'll send you a list I have of these translations.

"Interestingly, the teacher of Julius Mantey is one of those translators.  Mr. Mantey said that his teacher's translation "has succeeded in surpassing all other translators of the New Testament in bringing out the tense significance of the Greek verbs."  His teacher was Charles B. Williams, and Mr. Williams renders John 8:58 this way: "I existed before Abraham was born.".  Do you intend to publicly condemn Mr. Williams, Mr. Mantey for supporting him, and the MANY other translators who favor a non-trinitarian rendering of John 8:58 as well?

"Also, there is a professor of Biblical Greek named Kenneth McKay, whose credentials are impeccable, who has written an article wherein he very severely criticized the trinitarian rendering of John 8:58.  He offers this excellent rendering: "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born".  Do you also charge McKay with "taking liberties"?  Perhaps you should take the time to read his thesis on John 8:58 before making any rash judgments.  It appeared in the Expository Times, 1996, page 302.  However, if you don't have the time to look it up, I'll send it to you if you'd like.  Since you have admitted on the Internet that you are not a Greek scholar, perhaps you should be humble enough to defer to those who are when it comes to this verse.  Either that, or show the same "consistency" you claim the NWT lacks, and go public with your condemnations of ALL of these other translators.  
 

YOU ALSO SAID:
 

• "The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as ‘... and the Word was WITH God  as  the Word was a god’. How can the Word (Jesus) be ‘a god’ if God says in Deut 32:39, “See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me....”?
   

"See the discussion of John 1:1 I have appended to the end of this email message.  The information presented shows that the rendering "the Word was a god" is a legitimate rendering, and for a 'literal' translation, it's the best choice.  Many reputable scholars have admitted that "the Word was a god" would be a very natural way to render this verse; they reject it because they say that Jesus IS God (meaning God the Almighty, 2nd person of a trinity).  Excuse me, but is that not a "presupposition"?  Your reference to Duet. 32:39 doesn't serve your argument at all, for many were considered "gods" in the Bible, and they were not pagan or false gods.  Consider:

"In the Bible Moses is called god (Ex. 4:16; 7:1 [elohim]), angels are called gods (Ps. 97:7; 138:1; Ps. 8:6; Heb. 2:7 [elohim]), human judges are called gods (Ps. 82:1,6 [elohim]), and Satan is called the god of this world (2Corn. 4:4 [theos]).  Moses is called God to Pharaoh and Aaron because he was God's representative, and because the miracles he would perform would attest to his having Jehovah's spirit.  Angels are called gods because to us humans they certainly are powerful godlike beings. Also, they too, like Moses, represent Jehovah.  Human Judges are called gods because they have the power to judge, which gave them great authority over men's lives.  Jesus is called thoes because he is all of these things.  He is Jehovah's representative; he performed great miracles which testified to his having Jehovah's spirit; he is a powerful spirit being; and he will ultimately act as the judge of mankind.

"The fact that Jesus is called God does not make him Jehovah, for Christ himself affirmed that Jehovah was HIS GOD not once but SEVEN times!  Jesus confirmed that Jehovah is his God at Matt. 27:46; John 20:17, Rev. 3:2; and Rev. 3:12 (4 times).  

YOU ALSO SAID:
 

• "You state “for John to say ‘the word was with God and the word was God’ would be a real stretch in comprehension for a 1st Century audience.”  Oh really?  Why is that?  We KNOW that the early Christians worshipped Jesus as God as evidenced by their creeds so why would this be a ‘real stretch in comprehension.’
   

"What "creeds" are you referring to?  If you are not referring to the Bible, then I reject such creeds.  If you are referring to the Bible, then I think you may be reading more into the use of "proskyneo" then was intended by the Bible writer.  And insisting that it be rendered "worship" instead of "obeisance" is a bit dogmatic, since the word proskuneo does mean obeisance, as well as worship.  Moreover, the word prosekynesen (a derivative of proskyneo) is used in the Septuagint, in the Old Testament, for the homage or obeisance paid to Kings.  David did prosekynesen before Saul (1 Kings 24:9 in the LXX); Ab'igail did prosekynesen before David (1 SA 25:23); and a man did prosekynesen before David (1 SA 1:2 [2 Kings in the LXX]) Since most translations do not say that Saul or David were "worshipped" when translating these verses, why are you not criticizing them?  Finally, and this is quite unbelievable, why do you not criticize one of your own Church's favorite Bibles for the same "inconsistency"?  Observe:  

• • Rev. 3:9:  Idou didoo ek tees sunagoogees tou Satana toon legontoon heautous Ioudaious einai, kai ouk eisin alla pseudontai. Idou poieesoo autous hina heexousin kai proskuneesousin enoopion toon podoon sou kai gnoosin hoti egoo eegapeesa se. (As rendered in my transliterated Bible)

    OR:

    "Now I am going to make the synagogue of Satan--those who profess to be Jews, but are liars, because they are no such thing--I will make them come and fall at your feet and admit that you are the (10) people that I love."----The Jerusalem Bible
     

"Proskuneesousin (or prosekynesen), which is a derivative of proskyneo, and which you assert should only be rendered "worship", is rendered "fall at your feet" in one of your own church's Bibles!  If you want "consistency" then I think it is only fair that you show "consistency" in your objections.  Regarding the NWT translators "deceiving" people by not using "worship" in Hebrews 1:6, this is a bold claim.  If you open the NWT Reference Bible, you'll see that the footnote clearly states that "worship" is one of the possible renderings; so who is being deceptive?  Certainly not those translators of the NWT who are quite open and honest in explaining why they prefer certain renderings, and who are typically scrupulous in including explanatory footnotes in the Reference Bible.
 

YOU ALSO SAID:
 

• "It seems to me that the only way one can maintain that there are no contradictions in the bible and still make sense out of John 1:1 is to understand this passage in the traditional Trinitarian formula, no?"
   

"NO!  Biblical monotheism allowed for others besides Jehovah and Jesus to be viewed as Gods as I pointed out above.  Therefore, since we both agree that the Bible does not contradict itself, we must harmonize the fact that there is only one true God, with the FACT that others are correctly called god, or gods (elohim) in the Scriptures.  How can this be done?  Consider:

"Let's begin with the word SAVIOR.  Why did Jehovah say that there were no other saviors but him, when the Bible has several examples of others who Jehovah commissioned as saviors (see 2Kings 13:5; Neh. 9:27; Isa. 19:20)? Also, why did Jehovah say that there are no other Gods but him, and then refer to Angels, Moses, Human Judges, and Jesus as gods? I believe that the answer to both questions is the same.

"Jehovah can call himself the only savior because he is the source of salvation. Others can be referred to as savior because they are the means by which Jehovah saves.  It is similar with the title "God". Jehovah is the only true God because he is the only one whose godship is self-emanating. Others can be referred to as God because they draw their divinity from Jehovah.  Jehovah is the supreme (Almighty) self-contained God; others are god functionally and positionally, that is, by assignment. Jehovah can choose to confer godship or divinity upon his creation; their godship is therefore derived from Jehovah, and they are therefore 'gods' in a lesser sense.  The reason this is not a contradiction to monotheism is that all who derive their divinity from Jehovah, express their divinity to the glory of Jehovah. Their divinity reflects back to the one who conferred it upon them and thereby serves to bring glory and honor to the one supreme God.  This is reminiscent of the words "Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father."  Therefore, those who are rightly called "god(s)", express their divinity to the Glory of God the Father.

"I don't think you can deny the fact that Moses, human judges, and angels are all called "God" or "gods", and that they are still no part of a trinity. One of the reasons this is so hard for 20th century people to grasp is because we've come to base our understanding of what "monotheism" means on the words of men.  Such men have been viewing the term through trinity-tinted lenses for many centuries.  I believe that, rather than understanding the term "monotheism" through the eyes of some theologian or dictionary writer, we should base our understanding on what the Bible says. Doing so gives a much less restrictive definition--a definition which is very well captured by an author named Greg Stafford, who defines it as follows:
 

• • "Biblical Monotheism involves the recognition, acceptance and worship of only one true, uni-personal God, the Father. Other beings can and are rightly considered 'gods' in a different, lesser (that is, a positionally/functionally conferred and/or ontologically derived) sense than the true God. This is true of them either collectively or as individuals, so long as their position and glory preserve or further enhance the uniqueness of God."
     

YOU ALSO SAID:
 

• "AND (This one is really unbelievable!)

  "The NWT translates the Greek word ‘esti’ (estin) as ‘is’ in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mt 26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc.).   See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this Greek word as ‘means’ in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the translation of the word ‘esti’? If the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word ‘esti’ as ‘is’ in these verses, what would these verses say?"  

"What I find unbelievable is your objection to rendering esti as means, considering the fact that the Douay Bible has A WHOLE VERSE added to the text at 1 John 5:7.  Don't be "inconsistent" yourself; if you think it is so outlandishly unacceptable to use a word to clarify a meaning, then you must think it's downright unforgivable to add a WHOLE VERSE.  Moreover, if you look up Matthew 26:26 in the NWT Reference Bible, you'll see that there is a footnote that quite openly says that the literal meaning of the Greek estin is "is"!  Once again, Mr. Pacheco, who is being deceptive?  Certainly not those translators who are scrupulous in providing explanatory footnotes to most of the texts you criticize.  

THEN YOU SAID:  

• Why not just let the ‘chips fall where they may’ as other Protestant translations do, and argue the INTERPRETATION of Jesus’ words INSTEAD of DECEIVING readers by forcing their interpretation on the passage by changing the words?  

"You can't be serious!  Let the "chips fall where they may"?  Is the addition of an entire verse at 1 John 5:7 letting "the chips fall where they may"?  Is withholding the fact that there is much argument over how Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1:1 should be rendered letting "the chips fall where they may"?  Is the INSERTION of "the Alpha and Omega" at Rev. 1:11 in the KJV and the NKJV "letting the chips fall where they may"?  Is withholding the fact that the a very common and acceptable way to render article-noun-verb-noun constructions, such as the one found at John 1:1c, is to include the article, "letting the chips fall where they may"?  Are the MANY such abuses of Scripture found in the various Protestant Bibles, which serve only one purpose--TO SUPPORT A PRESUPPOSITION--letting the "chips fall where they may"?  I own about 40 translations of the Bible, so I know whereof I speak.  Some Protestant translations are dripping with trinitarian bias.  How about this gem from the Amplified Bible: "In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself."  Or what about this one, "yea, the Word was God Himself" (Williams).  How do these compare to the original Greek?  Not very well, I'm afraid.  If you really insist that only translations that "let the chips fall where they may" are acceptable, then you've just condemned every Catholic and Protestant Bible in existence; because none of them have "let the chips fall where they may".   

THEN YOU SAID:  

•  "If you had read my original objection, it was not with merely adding words, but adding or changing words that
  effectively cut off a possible interpretation or completely change the meaning of a passage.  That’s my beef."
   

"NO, that's not your beef.  Your beef is against Jehovah's Witnesses and their beliefs.  If your beef were against "changing words to cut off possible interpretations" you would have an equal beef with the Douay Version for adding 1 John 5:7, as I've already shown.  If your sincere objective were to make sure that Bible translators towed the mark, you'd be out there attacking a vast multitude of translations, which are far more "deceptive" then you think the NWT translators were.  But you've chosen to criticize only the NWT.  Why?  Because they had the courage to oppose the 'orthodoxy' and its 'authority'.  You have ignored the many other translations that have questionable renderings, because their translators have obediently fallen in line with the orthodox doctrine of the trinity.

"Moreover, when it comes to "changing words that effectively cut off a possible interpretation", since when has it been the role of Bible translators to make any interpretation possible?  Do your Catholic and Protestant translations make all interpretations possible?  No, they do not.  The role of the translator is to render the Greek into intelligible English without changing the meaning; it is NOT to accommodate every possible pressure group so as to avoid giving offense.  If you want such a Bible, you are welcome to use the latest from the Oxford University Press (the "Inclusive Version")--they've accommodated nearly everyone.
 

THEN YOU SAID:
 

• "It seems to me that you have admitted my original point:  there are ‘mistakes’ and ‘inconsistencies’ in the NWT translation.  I am not, however, as forgiving as you seem to be since I believe that they are calculated distortions."
   

"I don't think but I KNOW that the addition of 1John 5:7 was a "calculated distortion."  I KNOW that the addition of "The Alpha and Omega" in Rev. 1:11 by the KJV and the NKJV was a calculated distortion.  And if being deceptive is determined as much by what you withhold as it is with what you explain, then the withholding of the pertinent information surrounding Titus 2:13 and 2Peter 1:1 was deceptive.  Are you "forgiving" of your own Churches "calculated distortions"?  Do you object when pro-trinity "theological presuppositions" are used to determine how verses should read?  Not so as any one would notice, and certainly not on your web page.  

THEN YOU SAID:
 

•  It is abundantly clear from the above (and many other passages which I would be happy to provide to you) that the NWT translators not only DISTORT the original Greek and add words (and commas!), but they do so in order to support their doctrines.
   

"Add commas?  There are no commas in the original Greek text, so how could anybody possibly "add commas"?  More to the point, are you saying that the particular place your translators have chosen to ADD the comma is not actually an addition?  If there are no commas in the original Greek text, and your Bible obviously has a comma (I'm sure you mean Luke 23:43) then your translators have ADDED a comma.  At least the comma in the NWT makes sense!  After all, if Jesus died, and was in hades for three days, then he certainly was not in 'paradise' that day was he?--especially considering your own church's doctrine regarding hades or HELL. Did Jesus consider HELL to be a paradise?  Moreover, since the Bible says that Jesus was the first one back from the dead, and since he wasn't back from the dead for three days, the criminal that Jesus promised would join him in paradise couldn't have been there "this day" either, could he.  If you assert that the verse should be read as the Douay renders it, then you are asserting one of two things: (1) That the criminal and Jesus both considered hades or HELL to be a paradise (which makes no sense), or (2) that they were both resurrected the same day (which is not Scriptural).  The verse in the DV reads: "Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."  The verse in the NWT reads: "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise."  Only the rendering found in the NWT makes sense and is in harmony with the rest of the Bible.  By the way, the concept of a two-chambered hell is not supported by Scripture.

"All theology aside, however, your assertion that some sort of liberty was taken by the NWT translators is profoundly surprising for another reason.  One of the best Greek texts, namely Codex B or Vaticanus (Vatican 1209) of the fourth century CE, which is one of the few Greek texts that actually contains punctuation, HAS THE COMMA IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE THE NWT HAS IT!  Perhaps you should call the Vatican Library and let your criticisms of this particular Codex be made known, just for the record.  After all, you do want to be "consistent" in your criticisms don't you?

The Curetonian version of the Syriac translation (dated to the fifth century CE), according to the translation by F.C. Burkitt, renders Luke 23:43 this way: "Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden."

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible says, "Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise".

"Obviously Mr. Rotherham accepted that the word semeron had reference to the time the promise was made rather than to the time it was to be fulfilled.

The Concordant Literal New Testament renders the verse this way:  "And Jesus said to him, Verily, to you am I saying today, with me shall you be in paradise."

"In the above edition with the Greek text and commentary on facing pages, on page 93, we read: "The Lord will not come into his kingdom until after the great judgments which commence the Lord's day....The Lord assured the malefactor that his request will be granted, and that his present sufferings shall be exchanged for the delights of that day."

"The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed, (1958), by James L. Tomanek reads: "Indeed today I say to you, you shall be with me in paradise."

"Notice what German translator L. Reinhardt has to say about this text:
 

• • "The punctuation presently used [by most translators] in this verse is undoubtedly false and contradictory to the entire way of thinking of Christ and the evildoer...[Christ] certainly did not understand paradise to be a subdivision of the realm of the dead, but rather the restoration of a paradise on earth."
     

"I wonder how "consistent" you will be in letting your criticisms of the above translators be made known.
 

THEN YOU SAID:
 

• There are instances in the bible itself of the Apostles PUTTING DOWN AND SILENCING dissent, signifying their authority to do so (Galatians 1:6-10, 1 Corinthians 4:21, 5:4-5, 5:12-13).  Jesus, Himself, gave them authority to do so (Cf. Matthew 18:17)....So when the Apostles leave this earth, does their authority disappear with them, leaving the Church in utter confusion when false teachers would introduce error, or as you put it ‘various systems of belief’ irrespective of the Truth?  Is that what you think God’s master plan is like?
   

But show me where in the Bible it condones burning people at the stake to silence them; or torturing them to help guide them to the correct understanding.  That was the preferred method of the historic Church.  To guaranty that no "error" was allowed to infiltrate the faith, the hammer of heresy was introduced.  I don't think I need elaborate.  As for the Bible, it allows for the act of expulsion, not torture or murder.  The former (expulsion) is practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses; the latter (torture and murder) by the historic Catholic Church.

Sincerely,
..........

PS
Below is the discussion of John 1:1 I mentioned above.  Since the Bible provides the food of life--bon Appetit.

                                Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1--Who's telling the truth?

                               "There are some who would like us to believe that the rendering of John 1:1 offered in the NWT is a "mistranslation", an "alteration" of the verse. Such claims are not only completely unjustified, but easily proven false. Indeed, some trinitarian scholars who have argued quite ardently in favor of the traditional rendering of John 1:1, have themselves admitted that "the Word as a god" is grammatically possible. Others have more honestly admitted that "a god" is grammatically probable (Jason BeDuhn of Northern Arizona University for example). Still others, such as Harris, have admitted that the traditional rendering needs to be re-examined. Yes, even Harris, one of the trinities most outspoken proponents, admits that the traditional rendering ("the Word was God") is problematic even to trinitarian theology. Notice his words:

                               "...it is clear that in the translation "the Word was God" the term God is
                               being used to denote his nature or essence and not his person. But in
                               normal English usage "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the
                               Father...Moreover "the Word was God" suggests that "the Word" and
                               "God" are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the
                               Word is neither the Father nor the trinity. Therefore few will doubt that
                               this time-honored translation needs careful exegesis, since it places
                               a distinctive sense upon a common English word. The rendering
                               cannot stand without explanation."

                               Actually, the traditional rendering is not just problematic to trinitarian
                               theology, but it is illogical, and it defies the truth of what John was trying
                               to get across about the "Word". Let us briefly explore some of the
                               comments that have been made regarding John 1:1, and we'll see that the
                               NWT has offered a legitimate translation. Moreover, we will see that all
                               arguments against the rendering "the Word was a god" are based purely
                               upon theology, not grammar or linguistics.

                               Harris:

                               "from the point of view of grammar alone, [theos en ho logos] could be
                               rendered "the Word was a god--Jesus As God,1992, pp.60. (Again, Harris
                               rejects this translation on grounds other than grammar.)

                               Let me repeat, Harris rejects the rendering "the Word was a god", not on
                               the grounds of Greek grammar or syntax, but according to HIS theology. I
                               think Mr. Harris has it backwards: He is not basing his theology on what is
                                said by John in this verse, he is using his theology as a principle in deciding
                                what he will allow John to mean.

                               C.H. Dodd:

                               "If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation
                               of [theos en ho logos] would be," The Word was a god". As a
                               word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted"
                                (Mr. Dodd rejects the NWT translation, not on grammatical grounds, but on
                               theological grounds.)

                               Robert Young:

                               "lit. 'and a God (i.e. a Divine being) was the Word"

                               Notice that Robert Young, who wrote "Young's Concise Commentary",
                               admits that the most normal, "literal" way to translate John 1:1c is to call
                               the Word "a God", not "God". It should be remembered regarding the NWT
                               that it is a "literal" translation. So the NWT, which is a "literal" translation,
                               renders John 1:1c exactly as Robert Young admits it would be rendered if
                               it were to be rendered "literally". Surely this shows that those who have
                               charged the WTS with being "deceptive" regarding their rendering of John
                               1:1c, are themselves the ones who are being "deceptive". They have
                               allowed their theological commitments to becloud their scholarship

                               James Parkinson has written: 

                               "It is difficult to find objectivity in the translation of John 1:1. If Colwell's rule
                               is correct (that the definite predicate nominative does not take the article)
                               then "the Word was God" would be allowable. This translation is rejected
                               on two sides. Because the indefinite predicate nominative would also not
                               take the definite article, "the Word was a god" should be no less
                               allowable. Still others think the Greek theos here implies a quality and
                               translate it as "the Word was divine." Rejecting all three, the New English
                               Bible says, "What God was, the Word was." The ancient reading of John
                               1:18 mentioned above will impact the translation of verse 1. C. H. Dodd,
                               driving force of the NEB, acknowledges of the Word was a god--"As a
                               word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." He rejects it, saying,
                               "The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the
                               current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a
                               whole" (as though theological acceptability should be a criterion!)"

                               The Translator's New Testament says:

                               "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God'. In
                               the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific.
                               In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that
                               it's omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to
                               the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means 'The Word was
                               divine.'"

                               Dr Jason BeDuhn has said:

                               "In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation is perfectly correct
                               according to the best scholarship done on this subject. He [a NWT critic]
                               goes on to insist that the NWT is inconsistent because other uses of
                               THEOS without the article in John 1 are not translated the same way (a
                               charge repeated by Countess, as mentioned in the Stafford book, from the
                               same ignorance.) He fails to note that not only that the constructs are
                               different, but that these other uses are not nominative (THEOS) but
                               genitive (THEOU); the latter form is governed by totally different rules. The
                               genitive form of the noun does not require the article to be definite,
                               whereas the nominative form normally does. It's that simple."

                               Another example which speaks volumes regarding the oppressive, biased
                               theological forces at work when it comes to the translation of biblical
                               texts, in this case John 1:1c, involves Julius Mantey. Mantey is very
                               outspoken in his criticism of the NWT, and he even wrote a letter to the
                               WTS charging them with what he felt was an abuse of his grammar.
                               However, after examining the facts, it is observed that any "abuse" was
                               done by Julius Mantey.

                               Mantey has lived to regret including a reference in his grammar which
                               certainly DOES show that "the Word was a god" is a grammatically
                               possible rendering, whether Mantey would like to admit it or not!

                               Consider what is found on page 148 of his "Manual Grammar of the
                               Greek New Testament":

                               "(3) With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence. The article sometimes
                               distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence.
                               Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, (and the place was a market [my browser
                               does not allow for Greek characters]), we have a parallel case to what we
                               have at John 1:1, (and the word was deity). The article points out the
                               subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor
                               was the word all of God,..".

                               Notice how Mantey verifies that the article-noun-verb-noun construction found at Anabasis 1:4:6 is a parallel to the article-noun-verb-noun construction found at John 1:1. Do you notice something peculiar? Yes, that's right, the article is included in Anabasis 1:4:6 and excluded in John 1:1c. What is Mantey's reason for this disparity between two texts he affirms are parallel? HIS THEOLOGY! The ONLY reason he can provide for rendering John 1:1c as he does is that the Word was not "all of God." That is NOT a grammatical argument; it is a THEOLOGICAL ONE! For Mantey to charge the WTS with offering a rendering that is "neither scholarly nor reasonable" regarding John 1:1 is not a little dishonest. Mantey himself established the reasonableness of the article by verifying that John 1:1c and Anabasis 1:4:6 are parallels. If Mantey regrets having provided this parallel now, that's his problem, not the WTSs.

                               Mantey's charge that the WTS "misquoted" him is completely unfounded, because in order for the WTS to have "misquoted" Mantey, they would have had to have asserted that Mantey agreed with the NWT's rendering.

                               There's a big difference between quoting an author according to what his words were intended to mean and quoting an author according to what meaning his words allow. Mantey's parallel between John 1:1c and Anabasis 1:4:6 proves that "a god" is grammatically allowable, whether Mantey intended that understanding or not.

                               What should be clear by now to anyone who is reasonable, is that trinitarian translators, most of them at least, approach John 1:1 backwards: they do not base their doctrine upon what is said in this scripture, but they use their doctrine as a principle in translating it.

 The circumlocution (or as I humorously call it "triangulocution") I've encountered which attempts to justify reading three-in-one into John 1:1 is nothing short of mental gymnastics, and in my opinion, bespeaks desperation on the part of such translators. At the very least it shows that they have done exactly what they have charged the Watchtower Society with doing, namely, using theology to interpret this verse.

                               As for me, I prefer a theology that is strait forward and does not depend upon post-Biblical, pagan interpretations to define God. Moreover, when the Bible is considered in toto, a clear subordination of Christ to Jehovah is most evident. The problem I see with trinitarianism is that you have to resort to such mental gymnastics to support your doctrine. Then, when all of your 'triangulocution' is done, all you're left with is 'a mystery' anyway. How much more satisfying and reasonable to simply take the apostles and Jesus at their words, which are very direct and very strait forward in stating that Jehovah is "Jesus' God and Father." Isa 11:1; Micah 5:1-4; Matt. 27:46; John 20:17; Romans 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph 1:3; Eph 1:17; 1 Peter 1:3; Rev. 1:6; Rev 3:2; Rev 3:12; Heb.1:7-9; Heb. 2:7,8; 1 Corn. 15: 24-28; etc. etc. etc......    

Contributed by "Kazz"