"THE WORLDS MOST DANGEROUS BOOK"!!

 "THE WORLDS MOST DANGEROUS BOOK"!!

The above is the title of a page that can be found on the internet and is a critic's descriptive opinion of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. We will here refute this, what can only be called, a ludicrous contention including all the various charges brought against this Bible translation, it's translators and the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society by this prejudiced, dishonest and deceptive author.

The page begins:

Would you place your trust in a surgeon who was about to perform a major operation on you, if he refused to give you his name or credentials? OR.... . Would you place your faith in an attorney, who was defending you against false accusations of felony charges, if he also refused to give you his name or credentials?

The writer is attempting to use the above analogies in their censure of, their charges against the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. We will be able to perceive very quickly that they are somewhat deceptive and unsound.

We can see how important it is that we rely on the names and credentials of those who serve us in the important aspects of our life. As in the case of the lawyer, it is essential to know these things, for without knowledge, we would have no assurance that he would truly and honestly represent you. It is therefore of the utmost importance to know the men, the credentials and the qualifications of those who we entrust our spiritual lives!!

Yet, when it comes to Bible translations we do have a measure against which they can be evaluated. There are thousands upon thousands of manuscripts of both the Hebrew Scriptures(O.T.) and Christian Greek Scriptures (N.T.). Scholars called Textual Critics have examined and compared these and have produced texts that come as close to the original autographs as is possible. From these texts translations into modern languages are made.
The New World Translation is based primarily upon the Westcott and Hort Greek text but the Committee also consulted other texts such as Nestle, Bover, and Merk. More recently they considered the texts of the United Bible Society of 1975 and the Nestle-Aland of 1979. In 1969 the NWTTC brought out the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. This has the translation of the NWTTC in the right hand column of the pages. In the left hand column there is the Westcott and Hort Greek text to which is supplied a word-for-word translation directly underneath. Anyone can then examine what the Greek basically says and compare the NWT with that literal word-for-word translation. The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of 1985 was updated to include the latest revision of the NWT of 1984. Hence, even this information should enable us to see that the above critics analogies do not fit the intention of his allegations. Nor should we ignore the fact that over the years the NWTTC has given it's reasons for translating any particular verse or scripture in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures, doing this primarily in The Watchtower and Awake! magazines. So there is the opportunity afforded to any interested party to examine the basis and reasons why the NWTTC rendered the Hebrew or Greek the way they did.
Now we can go back to the above analogies of the critic of the NWT. It would be more accurate to illustrate the real situation with the cases of a surgeon and a lawyer like this: The surgeon who is unwilling to give you his name or credentials(which is borne from a good motivation)offers you a complete history of his past work in the oparation theatre and how he performed these surgical operations. What do you find? That of the 100 people he has operated on 100 of them have been complete successes. A 100% 'pass' rate! The lawyer you go to, while refusing to give you his name or credentials(yet he has his good reason for doing so), nonetheless shows you the 100 cases he has handled. He proves that in all 100 cases he was successful in defending his client. How then will we rate these professionals. By their refusal to give us their name or credentials or by their openly showing us their record of achievement? Obviously, the latter. Would you then trust the surgeon to operate on you or the lawyer to defend you?
However, even this analogy shows that making a comparison with surgeons and lawyers with those who translate the Bible is flawed. To practice as a surgeon or a lawyer one must pass officially recognised examinations. But this not the case with anyone or group of persons when it comes to translating the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. If a person or a group who educates themselves into the languages that the Bible was originally written in so that they are in a position to translate them and then proceeds to translate them into a modern language they do not have to pass any examination before they can proceed. So to judge whether or not their translation is an accurate or honest one, one must simply go to the translation itself and judge it on its own merits. This we can do with the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has failed the public at this most crucial point, as they refuse to give their followers the names and credentials of the Translation Committee of their Bible, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (see pg. 258 of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose).

The names and credentials of the New World Translation are unknown not because of the wishes of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society but by the members of the New World Translation Committee themselves. Is their position unique? On the jacket of the Reference Edition (1971) of the New American Standard Bible we read: "We have not used any scholar's name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God's Word should stand on it's merits." How, then, could anyone appraise this modern Bible translation? By looking not at the names or credentials of the translators but by looking at the translation itself. True, one can discover both the names and the credentials of the translators who were behind the New American Standard Bible if that is one's wish. But this would not abrogate the above sentiments by those very same translators. They are actually asking the reader of their translation to judge their work of translating the Hebrew and Greek scriptures on "it's own merits" - not on who they are or what academic credentials that they undoubtedly possess. One could ask: If one did judge the New American Standard Version "on it's [own] merits" and by doing so judged it as accurate and honest, would then an examination of those who were behind it change that 'judgement'? Of course not! Similarly, The Twentieth Century New Testament's (1904) translators were unknown until 1953 when an American scholar Dr Kenneth W. Clark studied the TCNT's secretary's records which were deposited in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, England by the last survivor of the translation group back in 1933. Yet while the names and credentials were not known this translation had occaisioned a fair amount of praise. It has been called "an excellent translation" and that in later years several scholars "have been glad to avail themselves of interpretations and renderings suggested by this non-specialist effort." The American scholar above named wrote "Somewhere along the line, some transforming miracle seems to have ocurred. We are forced to conclude that the devotion to their task has made them better scholars than they were at first."- Rylands Library Bulletin, September 1955, p. 66.
Therefore, we would state that the "names and credentials" of the New World Translation Committee is not the "crucial point." The "names and credentials" of any Bible translation has never been the "crucial point" as to whether a translation can be trusted or relied upon! (This would not deny that what religion, denomination or 'theological persuasion' of the translator's is not important when one reads or studies any translation. They are. All translations, the New World Translation not excepted, will be 'affected' by the translator's religious, theological persuasions and so being cognisant of what beliefs the translator's have will allow the reader to anticipate certains biases that that translation would/might contain.) Indeed, even those who consider the New World Translation to err in its translation of certain christological scripture because of the biases of its translators recognise that, to quote one critic of the NWT: "Thus the question, so often debated, of whether or not the translators of the NWT were scholars, or whether the NWT should be regarded as a scholarly work, is not terribly relevant to the question of the reliability of the NWT.....The fact is that the NWT shows evidence that those responsible for the revisions, the marginal notes, and the appendices, while not bona fide scholars, are quite capable of handling scholarly reference works and using them to develop their own interpretations of the Bible....It would be a mistake for evangelicals to rest their case against the NWT solely or primarily on the amateur status of its translators....the case against the NWT must rest on the evidence from within the NWT itself." (Robert M. Bowman Jnr, 1991, author of books on Jehovah's Witnesses) We would also add to this last sentence the word "for" so that any "case" 'for' the NWT also "must rest on the evidence from within the NWT itself."

The Watchtower of October 15th, 1999 says:
"Just who translated this remarkable Bible[the New World Translation]? The Watchtower of September 15th, 1950, said: "The men who compose the translation committee have indicated their desire....to remain anonymous, and specifically do not want their names to be published while they are in this life or after death. The purpose of the translation is to exalt the name of the living, true God." Some critics charged that the work should be summarily dismissed as the product of amateurs, but not all took such an unreasonamle stance. Writes Alan S. Duthie: "If we know who the translators or the publishers of a particular Bible translation are, does it help us to decide whether that translation is good or bad? Not directly. There is no substitute for examing the characteristics of each translation itself." "

So to repeat the critics arguement : "Would you trust/put faith in one who will not give you their names or credentials." Well, we do have the "credentials" of the New World Translation Committee. Their very translation itself.

This[the names and credentials of the NWTTC]is more important than the Watchtower Society will admit since the New World Translation Committee has deceived many in their translation of the Bible in the following ways:

Will the writer of the above prove their contention that the New World Translation- not the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society - has "decieved many" ? Apparently, this critic is one that is not decieved. So does that mean we can put our "trust" and "faith" in he? We shall see. He goes on to write:

1. They have invented non-existent rules of Greek grammar and then proceeded to follow these rules only when necessary to support their peculiar theology.

"Non-existent rules of Greek grammar"! We would like to know of these "rules" that the New World Translation Committee 'invented' and then "followed." ! Let us allow the writer of this allegation give us an example of such shall we?

A clear example of this is John 1:1, where the Translation Committee has rendered the Greek "and the Word was a god". We cite the appendix of another Watchtower publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, page 1158), for their footnote concerning John 1:1: "The reason for their rendering the Greek word Divine and not God is that it is the Greek noun Theos without the definite article..." May we call the Watchtower Society's attention to verses 6, 12 and 13 (also found in the first chapter of the Gospel of John). Here the Greek noun Theos appears without the definite article (as in John 1:1) and yet the Translating Committee has translated each verse as (Jehovah) God.

The critic partly quotes from the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, 1969 edition, page 1158, which refers it's readers to the translations of Moffatt and Goodspeed where both render John 1:1c as "and the Word was divine," (which is what the words from the K.I.T. the critic quotes is referring to) due to the fact that theos ocurrs without the definite article.
We might think then that the critic of the NWT rendering would be critical of Moffatt and Goodspeed aswell. For one must think that the critic would have expected Moffatt and Goodspeed to have translated "theos," without the article, in verses 6, 12 and 13 as "divine" also!!
Obviously, both of these Bible translator's felt that the significance of the anarthrous theos at John 1:1c was being used differently by the apostle John than the anarthrous ocurrences of theos at verses 6, 12 and 13[and, of course, the two others uses of theos in v.1]. The critic must believe then that both these Greek scholars were also "following" their own 'invented' "non-existent rule of Greek grammar" at John 1:1c but not doing so at those other verses in John 1! Of course, they were not doing anything of the kind and they were right to treat the anarthrous theos at John 1:1c differently. Nor were the NWTTC doing anything of the kind either.
It must be pointed out that which the critic [purposely?] omits. That is, after the above words in the K.I.T (1969) there follows a discussion which clearly shows that the NWTTC were certainly not "following non-existent rules" but carefully considering the context where the anarthrous theos is placed.

Perhaps here we should quote two competent Greek scholars which will show the ignorance of the critics position:

"Here, in the Prologue[of John's Gospel]the Word is said to be God,but as often observed,in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God',the definite article is not used(in the final clause).For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine'(Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the absolute sense of the name.The New English Bible neatly paraphrases the phrase in the words 'and what God was,the Word was',....In neither passage[including 1:18]is Jesus unequivocally called God...."- Vincent Taylor Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?, Expository Times, 73, No.4 (Jan.1962), p.118

He[a critic who makes the same mistake as the above]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." -Prof. Jason BeDuhn, Northern Arizona University, private letter-emphasis mine

We would also direct the critic to The Watchtower 1975, p.702, where after showing that at times the indefinite English article 'a' is used when anarthrous nouns occur in the Greek of the N.T. said, "This does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the Greek text it should appear in English with the indefinite article. Translator's render these nouns variously, at times even with a "the," understanding them as definite, though the definite article is missing. At Matthew 27:40, for instance, several English Bible versions have the phrase "the Son of God," though the Greek word for "son" is without the definite article."
Following this, again, it is apparent that the NWTTC did not "follow a non-existent rule" at this place but considered the context aswell as the noun theos as being anarthrous. The article quotes Alfred Marshall as saying, " "The use of it [the English indefinite article] in translation is a matter of individual judmement. We[Marshall] have inserted 'a' or 'an' as a matter of course where it seems called for." ....The New World Bible Translation Committee expresse[d their own] ...judgement in this place by the translation "a god." "
So in actual fact the critic has seriously misunderstood, hence, misrepresented, the very appendix he quotes from as the basis of his charge that the NWTTC followed a non-existent rule of Greek grammar. In fact it was almost the very opposite of this! (For a complete discussion of John 1:1 NWT click here.)

Let the critic tell us another place where he thinks that the NWTTC "followed a non-existent rule" of Greek grammar:

Another example of non-existent rules followed only when needed to support their theology is found in the forward of the afore mentioned Kingdom Interlinear Translation[1969 ed.](pg. 18). Here we are taught how to restore the Divine name. We are instructed that we can render the Greek words "Kyrios" (Lord) and "Theos" (God) into Divine name by determining if the Christian (Greek) writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). If so, we can render "Kyrios" (Lord) and "Theos" (God) as Jehovah God.

Restoring the Divine Name to the Christian Greek Scriptures(the New Testament)was not "following a non-existent rule." If anyone has read the Kingdom Interlinear Translation foreword then one would have to admit that there is a solid scientific basis for incorporating the Divine Name into passages where the Christian writers quoted from the Hebrew/LXX where the name did occur. The New World Translation have not been alone in this. Many translations into other langauges made by Christendom's missionaries aswell as those translations into Hebrew have also done likewise. As it is now the case that the LXX did contain the Name and the Christian writers read this version of the Hebrew Scriptures and used it in their quotations on what grounds is there to believe they did not use the name themselves? True, the extant mss of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain the name. But none of these are the originals. If what happened to the LXX, that is, that the name was removed from this translation in the early 2nd century by copyists who did not understand it's meaning or by anti-Jewish feeling, happened to the copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures, then that could explain why no extant mss contain the name.

In the Journal of Biblical Literature 96/1(1977) 63-83 George Howard, of the University of Georgia, wrote an article "The Tetragram And The New Testament."
He wrote about what recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean deserts tells us about the use of God's name in pre-Christian times. His writes: "These discoveries...may explain how NT authors used the divine name,[YHWH](and possibly abbreviations of it), was originall written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate [ks]. This removal of the Tetragram, in our view, created a confusion in the minds of the early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the "Lord God" and the "Lord Christ" which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself."(p.63)
To support this "theory" he goes on to describe "the relevant pre-Christian and post-NT evidence for the use of the divine name in written documents and explore its implications for the NT."(ibid)
On page 65 of said journal he writes:
"From these findings[pre-Christian Greek MSS of the OT] we can now say with almost absolute certainty that the divine name,[YHWH], was not rendered by [kyrios] in the pre-Christian Greek Bible, as so often has been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters or was transliterated into Greek letters. At a later time, about which we will have more to say soon, surrogates replaced the Tetragram. The first surrogates, as we will see, were [theos] and [kyrios]." pp.65, 66.
After surveying the Hebrew and Aramaic documents from the Judean Desert and Philo, he summarises:
"(1) In pre-Christian Greek MSS of the OT, the divine name normally appears not in the form of [kyrios], as it does in the great[4th and 5th cent.]Christian codices of the LXX known today, but either in the form of the Hebrew Tetragram(written in Aramaic or paleo-Hebrew letters)or in the translaiterated form of [IAO].
"(2) In the Hebrew documents from the Judean Desert the Tetragram appears in copies of the Bible, in quotations of the Bible, and in biblical-type passages such as florilegia and biblical paraphrases. Occaisionally, it appears in non-biblical material; but this is not often and the material is Bible-like in nature...."
(6) Perhaps the most significant observation we can draw from this pattern of variegated usage of the divine name is that the Tetragram was held to be very sacred. One could either use it or a surrogate for it within non-biblical material depending on one's individual taste. But in copying the biblical text itself the Tetragram was carefully guarded. This protection of the Tetragram was extended even to the Greek translation of the biblical text,...." pp.71, 72. italics mine.

Notice that the tetragram "was held to be very sacred," and copyists "carefully guarded" it. It would not be presumptous to believe that the Christian authors of the N.T. would also hold the divine name as "sacred" and "carefully guard" it. If that is the case, then they would surely have used it themselves. It would be only those who did not have the same view of the Tetragram, those who were after the writers of the N.T. themselves, when seeing the divine name in the Biblical text including copies of the N.T. text replaced it with surrogates such as 'kyrios'.

On pages 74, 75 Howard continues: "Christian Usage: When we come to Christian copies of the LXX, we are immediately struck by the absence of the Tetragram and it's almost universal replacement by [kyrios]. This means that somtime between the beginning og the Christian movement and the earliest copies of the Christian LXX a change had taken place. Just weh this change occurred is impossible to date with absoluteness. But by the time we reach the Christian codices of the LXX, the Tetragram is not found. Instead the words [kyrios], and occaisionally [theos], stand for the divine name and are abreviated as [ks] and [ths]. In addition to these words there are a number of other nomina sacra (as they are called) in abbreviated form.
"In all probability the Tetragram in the Christian LXX began to be surrogated with the contracted words....at least by the beginning of the second century. For our purposes the point that is most important is that these same abbreviated words appear also in the ealiest copies of the N.T. These abbreviations, as we will argue, are important for understanding the use of God's name in the New Testament."

"From all that we know, the Tetragram was the most sacred word in the Hebrew religion. While Hellenistic Jews and Jewish Christians held the LXX to be as valid as the Hebrew text, it is clear from the former's preservation of the Tetragram within the Greek Scriptures that [theos] was not generally held to be equal to nor was it held to be suitable as a replacement for the Tetragram within the written text of the Bible. We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write [YHWH] within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [theos] and [kyrios] it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself.
" It is much more likely that the contracted [forms] go back to Gentile Christians who lacked the support of tradition to retain the Tetragram in their copies of the Bible. If any Jewish Christians accepted these forms as early surrogates for it, they were probably liberal Greek-speaking Jewish Christians under the influence of their Gentile brothers. The contracted forms ...may have been a compromise on the part of the Gentiles, out of deference to the Jewish Christians, to mark the sacredness of the divine name which stood behind these surrogates.
(1) The Tetragram and the New Testament. We are now in a position to trace the history of the Tetragram in the Greek Bible as a whole, including both Testaments. As we have seen the normal practice was for it to be written in paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic letters, or to be transliterated into Greek letters, in pre-Christian copies of the LXX. Jewish scribes never abandoned this practice but continued to use it both in their copies of the LXX and in the later versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. On the Christian side, conservative Jewish Christians probably continued to write the Tetragram in their copies of the LXX. Toward the end of the first century Gentile Christians, lacking a motive for retaining the Hebrew name for God, substituted the words [kyrios] and [theos] [kyriosbeing used more often than theos]) for the Tetragram. Both were written in abbreviated form in a conscious effort to preserve the sacral nature of the divine name. Soon the original significance of the abbreviated surrogates was lost, however, and many other contracted words were added to the list.
When we come to the NT, there is good reason to believe that a similar pattern evolved. Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the NT writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. On the analogy of pre-Christian Jewish practice we can imagine that the NT text incorporated the Tetragram into its OT quotations and that the words [kyrios]and [theos] were used when secondary references to God were made in the comments that were based upon the quotations. The Tetragram in these quotations would, of course, have remained as long as it continued to be used in the Christian copies of the LXX. But when it was removed from the Greek OT, it was also removed from the quotations of the OT in the NT. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments. Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church altogether except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or occasionally remembered by scholars. The original purpose of the surrogates themselves was soon forgotten and this in turn gave rise to a host of abbreviated nomina sacra which were connected with the Tetragram in no way at all. At the same time, however, it is possible that conservative Jewish Christians, such as, say, the Ebionites, preserved the Tetragram wherever it was found in both the Old and the New Testaments.Their conservative Jewish heritage -would have demanded it.
The removal of the Tetragram in the NT of the Gentile church obviously affected the appearance of the NT text and no doubt influenced the theological outlook of second century Gentile Christianity; just how much we may never know. But if we permit our mind's eye to compare the original OT quotations in the NT with the way they appeared after the Tetragram was removed, we can imagine that the theological change was significant. In many passages where the persons of God and Christ were clearly distinguishable, the removal of the Tetragram must have created considerable ambiguity.....
" It is interesting to note that the confusion that emerged from such passages in the second century is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT. A large number of variants in the NT MS tradition involve the words [theos{God}, kyrios{Lord}, Iesous{Jesus}, Christos{Christ},huios{Son}and combinations of them. The theory we suggest to explain the origin of many of these variants (though, of course, not all) is that the removal of the Tetragram from the OT quotations in the NT created a confusion in the minds of scribes as to which person was referred to in the discussion surrounding the quotation. Once the confusion was caused by the change in the divine name in the quotations, the same confusion spread to other parts of the NT where quotations were not involved at all. In other words once the names of God and Christ were confused in the vicinity of quotations, the names were generally confused elsewhere....
"(2) Concluding Observations. The above examples are, of course, only exploratory in nature and are set forth here programatically. Nevertheless, the evidence is sufficiently strong to suggest that the thesis of this paper is quite possible. We have refrained from drawing too many conclusions due to the revolutionary nature of the thesis. Rather than state conclusions now in a positive manner it seems better only to raise some questions that suggest a need for further explanation.
(a) If the Tetragram was used in the NT, how extensively was it used? Was it confined to OT quotations and OT paraphrastic allusions, or was it used in traditional phrases, such as "the word of God / Lord" (see the variants in Acts 6:7; 8:25; 12:24; 13:5; 13:44, 48; 14:25; 16:6, 32), "in the day of the Lord" (cf. variants in I Cor 5:5), "through the will of God" (cf. variants in Rom 15:32)? Was it also used in OT-like narratives such as we have in the first two chapters of Luke?
(b)Was the third person singular pronoun ever used in the NT as a surrogate for "God"? The quotation of Isa 40:3 in Mark 1:3; Matt 3:3; Luke 3:4 ends with [eutheias poieite tas tribous autos]. [Autou] stands for [Hebb:"our God"]in the MT and [tou theou emwn]in the majority of the LXX MSS. The fact that in I QS 8:13 the elongated pronoun is used in a reference to this exact phrase suggests that [autou] is possibly an abbreviation in the Synoptics.
(c) How great was the impact of the removal of the Tetragram from the NT? Were only those passages affected in which God and Christ were confused by the ambiguity of the immediate context; or were other passages, which reflected a low christology even after the change, later altered to reflect a high christology? Did such restructuring of the text give rise to the later christological controversies within the church, and were the NT passages involved in these controversies identical with those which in the NT era apparently created no problems at all?
(d) What part did heresy play in the formation of the NT text? Did the removal of the Tetragram play a role in the split between the Ebionites and the Gentile church; and if so, did the Ebionite movement cause the Gentile church to restructure even more its NT toward a higher christology?
(e) What are the implications of the use of the divine name in the NT for current christological studies? Are these studies based on the NT text as it appeared in the first century, or are they based on an altered text which represents a time in church history when the difference between God and Christ was confused in the text and blurred in the minds of churchmen? Can it be that current scenarios of NT christology are descriptions of second- and third-century theology and not that of the first?"

The editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature where Howards article appeared was Joseph A. Fitzmeyer. His editorial team and himself judged it worthy of publication at that time. He has written to us and said:
"I personally was pleased with what I saw, even though I would not have agreed with every last detail in the paper, because it had confirmed much of what I had written independently on the same matter.... I can only hope that they [other scholars] would have taken it into consideration, when it was called for."

We would like to see critics such as the one above take it into consideration also! If they did they would not be so rash as to speak as they have!
When asked if he would approve of an English translation incorporating the divine name into its text Fitzmeyer said: "I should hesitate to approve [of one]...that would put Yahweh in places where Kyrios of the New Testament has rendered the tetragram."-italics mine. He would be "hesitant." But the New World Translation Committee did not feel any such hesitancy. For their part they believed that the "theory" of Howard is rather "a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts."- NWT. Reference Edition, p.1564.
But the NWTTC were very careful. They state on p.1565: "To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background." So despite Howard himself saying when asked about the New World Translation, "I do not approve of their translation. My arguement pertained primarily to the Divine Name appearing in O.T quotations in the N.T. The JW's want to insert it everywhere", the fact is that of all the 237 times the name occurs in the NWT text the NWTTC "looked for agreement from the Hebrew versions to confirm our rendering. Thus out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our translation, there is only one instance where we have no agreement from the Hebrew versions. But in this one instance, namely, 1 Cor 7:17, the context and related texts strongly support rendering the divine name."-ibid. Notice that it was for "suppoort" for the NWT renderings and not as a "basis" that the NWTTC cites these Hebrew versions
For instance regarding the " JW's wanting to insert it[the Divne Name] everywhere". Taking Matthew's gospel in the NWT the name Jehovah occurs 18 times. 11 of these are direct quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures that have the divine name. The other 7 times is when the phrase "angel of Lord" occurs which would be the the common Hebrew phrase "Jehovah's angel," for in the Hebrew the phrase "the Lord's angel" does not occur. So if Matthew did use the name and when using this common Hebrew phrase he would no doubt have written the name also.
Stafford discusses the NWT and the use of the name in the N.T. part of it. In a table on p.31, 32 he shows that it is only on 79 occiasions the NWT used Jehovah as a rendering for Lord/God in the Greek were actual quotations/paraphrases from the O.T. He also feels it was legitimate to use the name on 14 other occaisions where the Christian writer is referring to "Jehovah's actions or words in the O.T." So then he believes there are "93 instances where the divine name has solid basis for being used in translations of various NT documents."-p.33
In the chart of Staffords mentioned already we can see that there are 61 instances where the NWT uses the name where "the context does favor the interpretation that the terms "Lord" and "God" refer to Jehovah." Stafford points out that it may be argued that it might have been better to choose to use the terms that are actually in the extant mss and point out in a footnote that the "Lord" here is a reference to the Lord Jehovah not to the Lord Jesus. But that as the referent here is to Jehovah the NWTTC were "justified in making this indentification explicit."-p.34
In the final 83 times the name Jehovah occurs in the body of the NWT it is a case of interpretation.So that whereas in Matthew 1:20 the referent is certainly Jehovah the one to who it refers to at Matthew 28:18 could possibly be the Lord Jesus Christ as he is said to have angels under his authority.
So Staffords conclusions in this points to fewer occaisions when the writers of the N.T. used the divine name than the NWTTC decided they might have. Although he states that the NWTTC did in fact have their reasons for using the divine name as much as they did he makes the point that "the basis for using the divine name in the NT should be open to as few questions as possible, since we do not have the original NT manuscripts at our disposal.The fact that there are some 144(at the very least, 83) instances where the NWT used the divine name in the NT on the basis of their interpretation of the context, is their perogative as translators."-p.35
Stafford continues: "However, the argument that the basis for NWT's use of the divine name in the 144 instances listed the last two columns of figure 1.2 (the "J" documents) does not outweigh the testimony of the available NT witnesses, cannot be faulted. But since the NWT translators have gone to great lengths to help their readers understand the basis for their use of the divine name in these 144 instances, providing all the relevant data for the material in footnotes, forewords and appendices, then they cannot rightly be spoken of as having attempted to deceive anyone. At most, it could be said that NWT did not clearly communicate the fact that not all uses of the divine name in NT were based on OT quotations or paraphrases. Still, in view of the space they have devoted to explaining their use of the divine name in the NT, I am not sure that even this would be a legitimate argument."-ibid

Once again, the Watchtower "rule" is avoided by the Translation Committee as they translate Philippians 2:11. The Apostle Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23 as he states that "every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God (Kyrios) to the glory of God the Father.

In a 1960 issue of the Watchtower(p.318) we read this question and answer:

"[Question]Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, a member of the faculty of Princeton, New Jersey, Theological Seminary, writes: "In the New World Translation it is stated (page 9 of New Testament volume), "To each major word we have assigned one meaning and have held to that meaning as far as the context permitted." My question arises from the failure to abide by this self-imposed rule at Philippians 2:11, where the word kyrios, elsewhere rendered "Jehovah" 237 times, is not rendered "Jehovah" despite the clear allusion to Isaiah 45:23 and following where the word Jehovah appears. Could it be that the Arian theology of the translators overrode their expressed rule of translating?" Do you deem this inquirer's question deserving of a sound and thorough reply?

"[Answer]A number of Watchtower readers, evidently unacquainted with New Testament Greek, have written us a similar question, apparently inspired by the publicity that Dr. Metzger has given to a discussion of this matter. The doctor quotes from the second paragraph on page nine of the Foreword, where we read "To each major word we have assigned one meaning and have held to that meaning as far as the context permitted. This, we know, has imposed a restriction upon our diction, but it makes for good cross-reference work and for a more reliable comparison of related texts or verses. At the same time, in order to bring out the richness and variety of the language of the inspired writers, we have avoided the rendering of two or more Greek words by the same English word, for this hides the distinction in shade of meaning between the several words thus rendered." The theological doctor quotes part of the above and leaves his reader to imagine that the translators of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures were arbitrary, or self-determining, in their rendering of the Greek word ky'rios (without the Greek definite article) by the divine name, Jehovah. But in its very Foreword the translators show that they were not acting arbitrarily in rendering the Greek word ky'rios (without the definite article) into English as Jehovah. If Dr. Metzger has read the Foreword of the above volume through, then he should have learned on what basis the New World translators restored the divine name, Jehovah, to the English translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Beginning on page 19, he should have read the following:
" RESTORING THE NAME: What is the modern translator to do? Is he justified, yes, authorized, to enter the divine name into a translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures? Every Greek reader must confess that in the LXX the Greek words kyrios and the theos have been used to crowd out the distinctive name of the Supreme Deity. Every comprehensive Greek-English dictionary states that these two Greek words have been used as equivalents of the divine name. Hence the modern translator is warranted in using the divine name as an equivalent of those two Greek words, that is, at places where Matthew, etc., quote verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures or from the LXX where the divine name occurs." Then to that paragraph there is added a footnote of three paragraphs quoting from three different Greek-English lexicons to show that in the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures the Greek words ky'rios and theos' were used to substitute for the divine name, Jehovah.
Now on page 20 of the Foreword, paragraph one says: "How is a modern translator to know or determine when to render the Greek words [kyrios]and [theos]into the divine name in his version? By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then he must refer back to the original to locate whether the divine name appears there. This way he can determine the identity to give to [kyrios] and [theos] and he can then clothe them with personality."
This Foreword shows that in the course of time nineteen translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures, or of parts of them, have been made from the Greek into the ancient Biblical Hebrew, and that these Hebrew translators, including Professor Franz Delitzsch and also Dr. Isaac Salkinson and Dr. Christian David Ginsburg, used the name Jehovah or the Hebrew tetragrammaton (with vowel symbols) in translating the writings of Christ's apostles and disciples, generally known as the New Testament. Thus, before the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures came along, these Hebrew translators put the divine name in the Christian writings officially called the New Testament.
Consequently on page 20 of the Foreword the New World Bible Translation Committee says in the second paragraph: "To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have tried to be most cautious about rendering the divine name, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures. We have looked for some agreement with us by the Hebrew versions we consulted to confirm our own rendering. Thus, out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our version, there are only two instances where we have no support or agreement from any of the Hebrew versions. But in these two instances, namely, Ephesians 6:8 and Colossians 3:13, we feel strongly supported by the context and by related texts in rendering the divine name. The notes in our lower margin show the support we have for our renderings from the Hebrew versions and other authorities."
In view of the above we wonder why the faculty member of the Princeton Theological Seminary quoted only partially from page 9 of the above-mentioned Foreword, but left unquoted to you all the above information in the Foreword concerning how the translators determined upon the fitness of putting the divine name back into the Christian Scriptures. These portions, which the theologian fails to call to your attention, show why ky'rios (without the definite article) is not always rendered as Jehovah in the New World Translation.
The theologian says that Philippians 2:11 clearly alludes to Isaiah 45:23 and following material. Let us see. These verses, as translated by the American Standard Version, read: "By myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Only in Jehovah, it is said of me, is righteousness and strength; even to him shall men come; and all they that were incensed against him shall be put to shame. In Jehovah shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory."
However, Philippians 2:9-11 in the American Standard Version reads: "Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [ ky'rios ], to the glory of God the Father."
This is not the same as the Isaiah quotation. Philippians 2:11 does not say that every tongue should swear to Jesus. It says that every tongue should confess something concerning Jesus to the glory of God the Father. So this is not an allusion to Isaiah 45:23 such as would require Jesus to be identified with Jehovah.
Remember that "Jehovah" is a name, the divine name, but Philippians 2:9-11 says that the name of the Son of God is Jesus, not Jehovah; and the name Jesus really means "Jehovah is salvation" or "the salvation of Jehovah." So what Philippians 2:11 says is that every tongue is going to confess the occupancy by Jesus of a certain titular office, to the glory of God the Father, namely, lordship. This title "Lord" in the Greek text is ky'rios (without the definite article).
Anyone familiar with the New Testament Greek knows that this word ky'rios (without the definite article) is used in places when addressing a person and hence does not mean Jehovah. It means Lord or Sir. That is the way the New World Translation and other versions render the anarthrous ky'rios in the appropriate places. Also, when ky'rios is used as a title it appears without the definite article, as in cases like that of Philippians 2:9-11.
All the English versions of Christendom, even those in Hebrew, show that in Philippians 2:11 the ky'rios without article is used as a title, not as a personal name. That is the reason why the New World Translation renders Philippians 2:11: "Every tongue should openly confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." No Christian has to confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, because that is not the truth. Jesus told us to pray for his Father's name to be hallowed or sanctified, and every informed Bible scholar knows that the name of God the Father is Jehovah.
The apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6, says:" For even though there are those who are called 'gods', whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many 'gods' and many 'lords' , there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him, and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him" So what Christians must confess is that Jesus Christ is Lord, or ky'rios (without the definite article).
The word ky'rios without the definite article is thus used also in 1 Corinthians 12:3. There in the Greek text the same expression occurs as in Philippians 2:11, namely, KYRIOS YESOUS. In both texts the Greek word ky'rios is a title by which a person of a certain name is to be addressed. Hence it would be wrong, in fact ridiculous, to render that expression KYRIOS YESOUS "Jehovah Jesus." None of the Hebrew translations render it "Jehovah Jesus", but recognize the Greek word ky'rios there as a title and hence use the Hebrew word Adonai, meaning Lord, instead of the name Jehovah.
Hence the New World Translation is consistent, and it violates no general rule of action set forth in its Foreword when it renders the expression in 1 Corinthians 12:3, as well as in Philippians 2:11, "Jesus is Lord," not "Jesus is Jehovah." So the translators are not to be charged with being influenced by the theology of the antitrinitarian Arius for doing so.
A recent translation entitled "The Authentic New Testament" by a Jew named Hugh J. Schonfield, published in 1955, renders the expression as an address to Jesus, reading: "And no one is able to say, 'Lord Jesus!' except by the holy Spirit."(1 Corinthians 12:3) This Jewish translator renders Philippians 2:11: "And every tongue acclaim Jesus Christ as Master, to the glory of God the Father." It is very easy for a trinitarian theologian of Christendom to carp at a Bible translation that does not agree with his trinitarian doctrine. But when he does so by concealing the basis upon which the criticized translation makes its consistent rendering, is he fair and scholarly? Or has he proved his point? We leave you to answer the question."

2. The Translation Committee has made up a Greek tense that is non-existent. We cite the 1950 edition of their "New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures" rendering of John 8:58 where they have translated "ego eimi" as "I have been" and state that it is "properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense" in the Greek language. There is NO "perfect indefinite sense" in any language! After the Watchtower Society was informed of this fact, they made the change to the "perfect tense indicative" but as the Greek student knows, it is present tense and is correctly translated "I AM" (see Exodus 3:14)

We do not think that this particular critic has done his homework properly nor read the footnote in the New World Translation(1950) carefully enough!
First of all the critic appears to think that the footnote when it refers to a "perfect indefinite tense" is referring to the actual Greek for he comments "they have translated "ego eimi" as "I have been" and state that it is "properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense" in the Greek language." Not so! The "perfect indefinite tense" refers to the English rendering not the Greek.
But the critic is also quite adamant that "There is NO "perfect indefinite sense" in any language!"
Is this the case?
Below for the benefit of all those who have wondered about this "perfect tense indefinite" of the English langauge we herewith reproduce from A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical (first impression 1891)by Henry Sweet, Ma, Ph.D., LL.D, page 105, a chart(click here for actual reproduction)which the aforementioned scholar gives after writing "The following are the chief tenses used in English in simple statements :-

Present Preterite Perfect Pluperfect Future Future Perfect Preterite Future

Indefinite I see I saw I have seen I had seen I shall see I shall have seen I should see

Definite I am seeing I was seeing I have been seeing I had been seeing I shall be seeing I shall have been seeing I should be seeing

The above is cited and quoted in Crowell's Dictionary of English Grammar and Handbook of American Usage by Maurice H. Weseen, Associate Professor of English in the University of Nebraska, (author of A Dictionary of American Slang.) Thomas Crowell Company, New York, 5th printing 1939, pp.177, 178. Also, on p.328 in it's glossary of terms: "Indefinite Tense. This term is used by some grammarians to denote simple past, present or future as distinguished from progressive and complete tenses..."

We might also refer the critic to The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, 2nd Ed revised, 1985, Clarendon Press, Oxford, where on p.426 in it's glossary say: "indefinite adj. 1. Vague, undefining, unlimited. 2.(gram, of adjs., pronouns etc.) Not determining the person, thing, time, manner, etc., to which they refer; (of tenses of verbs) denoting an action without specifying whether it is continuous or complete:..." See left.

So it is poor research by anyone to say that there is and has never been the "perfect indefinite" or it's equivalent in the English language. It has been in use for hundreds of years and can even be found in modern English dictionaries.The NWTTC certainly did not "invent" this tense either in the Greek or even in the English.The NWTTC nor the WTBTS has ever said it was a Greek tense but the footnote is clear it was the tense of the English rendering. Interestingly, Stafford publishes a letter to one Jehovah's Witness from the WTB&TS who he asked about the footnote in the 1950 edition of the NWT. They replied :
"In the first edition of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures released in 1950, the footnote on John 8:58 explained why the New World Translation rendered the Greek phrase ego eimi as "I have been." It was stated that this phrase was properly "rendered in the perfect indefinite tense." It was never meant to say that there is a "perfect indefinite tense" in Greek. What was meant was that the Greek present indicative ego eimi is here rendered into English in the perfect tense, "I have been," with an idea of indefiniteness. That is to say, no mention of the length of Jesus' prehuman existence is here given.... The translators of the New World Translation are fully aware that there is no Greek tense known as the perfect indefinite tense, but when we translate this phrase into English, it is properly rendered in the perfect tense."-Jehovah's Witnesses Defended(2nd ed, Elihu Books)p.261

The critic continues:

3. They have added words to Scripture which changes the meaning of the texts to agree with their theology. Notice the Watchtower's rendering of Colossians 1:16,17, where the word "other" has been added four times to the text, completely changing its meaning. When Paul wrote those passages that the Son created all things, it is obvious that the Son was not himself created. The Watchtower, however, believes that the Son is also a created being and has therefore added "other" - not found in the Greek Biblical text at all - to make it appear that the Son is also a creature.

Yet when we asked a Professor of Greek to comment on the New World Translation at Colossians 1:15ff and it's use of the word "other," part of the reply was: "On Colossians 1:15-20, you have focused precisely on the key to this passage. By calling Jesus the "firstborn of creation" in v.15, Paul has explicitly identified Christ as part of creation. Amazingly, most Christians overlook this fact. The JW's[in the NWT]draw attention to it by inserting [other] into the subsequent verses. A bit heavy handed, but in terms of the content and meaning of the passage, perfectly correct...."
(For a discussion of Colossians 1:15 "the firstborn of all creation" click here)

As mentioned before, the Translation Committee has added the word "a" to John 1:1 to make the Son a creature rather than God Himself. Take note also of the same deceitfulness displayed in Philippians 2:9 where the word "other" is again added, when it is not found or even suggested in the original Greek.

We have already seen that John 1:1 can be translated as the New World Translation, and others, have done. No "deceitfulness" but rather a team of translator's using a different "judgement" than some who believe that the Word was/is God. What about Philippians 2:9 where in the NWT it reads: "For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name." Is this "deceit"? Is the word "other" "not found or even suggested in the original Greek ?
Does the critic believe that the trinitarian translator C.B.Williams in his The New Testament in the Language of the People displayed "deceitfulness" when he decided to translate v.9 "This is why God has highly exalted Him, and given Him the name that is above every other name. "italics ours.
Or perhaps Edgar Goodspeed displalyed deceitfulness aswell for he translates this verse: "That is why God has so greatly exalted him, and given him the name above all others" ? -The Bible-An American Translation.(italics ours)
And what of The Translator's New Testament? And what of the very recent Contemporary English Version of 1995? Both use the word "other" in this verse.

4. The men who comprised the [NWT]Translation Committee had no adequate schooling or background to function as critical Bible translators.

Well, it could be said that those behind the Twentieth Century New Testament(1902) didn't and yet they were able to produce a very good, sound translation. But this is not to infer that we understand that those of the New World Translation Committee did not have "adequate schooling or background." The fact is that the ability to translate from one language(source language)into another(the receptor/target language)can be obtained a number of ways. One way would be to go through college/university channels. Another would be to study the languages in private and educate one self to the required level. Undoubtedly the latter would be the harder of the two-but not impossible. It must have been the course that the Twentieth Century New Testament and the New World Translation Committee members took. Hence, if in fact this is so, we can say that these translators did have the "schooling and [the] background" to "function" as "Bible translators." Whether they used such and produced a scholarly and accurate translation has to be based on their translation itself.

Some like to quote H.H.Rowley. He reviewed the Hebrew Scriptures portions of the New World Translation. In "How Not to Translate the Bible" Rowley, a moderately liberal Old Testament scholar reviews were published in an academic periodical, the Expository Times (Nov. 1953). He commented that the New World Translation reminded him of "a schoolboy's first painful beginnings in translating Latin into English." What can be said of this? Firstly, anyone who can read the Society's literature then, in the 1950's, and now, can see that those who write for the Society do so in a high level of English. So, the question naturally arises why did Rowley so express himself about the NWT's English of the Hebrew Scriptures which English is certainly different from the English of the Society's other publications, which of course, were not translations. Its because he appraised the English of the New World Translation on what he thought was the best way to translate the original Hebrew. Hence, his words express a judgement not based upon the methodology and principles of translation which the New World Translation Committee held too but what he felt an English translation should look like! This then would result in a flawed assessment and judgement of the New World Translation, indeed, any English translation that aspires to the same translation principles as the New World Translation does. To quote Rolf Furuli on this: "Such [words] sows doubts in the minds of the readers because it conveys the thought that the translators did not master the Biblical languages which they translated, nor the English language. What the reader is not told[by some who quote him]is that Rowley uses the particular premise that only idiomatic translations are warranted. But it is bad methodology to use such a premise when evaluating a literal translation, particularly when the premise is not stated. A translation should be judged on the basis of its own merits, and not on the basis of personal viewpoints as to what a Bible translation should look like. A translation which follows the sentence structure of the source language rather than the receptor language must be somewhat wooden and unidiomatic, and this is also the case with the NWT. But this is completely different from what Rowley is talking about."-The Role of theology and Bias in Bible Translation, p.293, 294.

The self-appointed "scholars" who made up this Translation Committee were: N.H. Knorr, F.W. Franz, A.D. Schroeder, G.D. Gangas and M. Henschel.

The fact is, that despite some claiming to know who the members were this knowledge is not known. These names have been cited before again and again. It is a vain attempt to discedit a Bible version , an attempt which shows how dry the critics well is. They would not need to try to discover the names of the New World Translation Committee if their translation was so deficient would they? The critics could prove their contentions by going straight to that translation. We suppose the philosophy of this kind of impugnment is that if you throw any 'mud' it's always a hope some will stick. But those who 'throw' such 'attacks' are, we believe, the ones who are ending up looking 'dirty'.

Aside from the current President Franz[now passed away], none of the Translation Committee members knew Biblical Greek or Hebrew[if this is correct, which we do not believe it is, then why on earth would they wish to attempt to translate the Bible!]and Franz's ability is open to serious question.[We shall see!]This came out in the Scottish Court Sessions in November, 1954 (just four years after the release of the Watchtower Scriptures).[Is this all the 'evidence' the critic has? How dry his well truly is!]The following exchange of question and answers between the attorney and Franz is taken from the trial transcript:
Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
A. Yes....
Q. So that you have substantial linguistic apparatus at your
command?
A. Yes, for use in my biblical work.
Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew,
Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French?
A. Yes.....(Pursuer's Proof, pg. 7)
Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
A. I do not speak speak Hebrew.
Q. You do not?
A. No
Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
A. Which?
Q. That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis.
A. You mean here?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I wouldn't attempt to do that. (Pursuer's Proof, pgs.
102,103).


What Franz failed to do was a simple exercise which an average first or second year Hebrew student in any seminary would have no difficulty.

Franz did not "fail" in the sense of being "deficient" or "unsuccesful." He simply declined to do that which was asked. As he did not attempt to translate the English of Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew we might still believe he could if he felt it necessary to do so. Obviously he did not. The fact is that in answer to the question "So that you have substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?" Franz replied in the positive. What part he played in the NWT we just do not know.
Stafford in Appendix B Jehovah's Witnesses Defended(2nd ed)asks why Franz may not have wanted to attempt to translate the English of Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew. He quotes William Sanford LaSor, Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, vol.1(Grand Rapids: Errdmans, 1978),3 :

"All learning is in context. The context, however, is not artificial, composed perchance by one who does not use the language naturally, but rather it is the actual language of those who read it as their mother-tongue. For this reason, I refuse to ask the students to compose sentences in Hebrew. To do so is to impress errors on the student's mind. And, frankly, most of us who teach Biblical Hebrew do not have sufficient fluency in the language to speak or write in it."

Stafford then comments: "Now, considering Franz' earlier testimony, that he had made himself familiarwith Hebrew, and that he could read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, and his admission that he could not speak Hebrew, we can certainly understand Franz' refusal to translate Genesis 2:4 from English into Hebrew(not Hebrew into English). For, as LaSor points out, even most teachers of Biblical Hebrew "do not have sufficient fluency in the language to speak or write in it." He concludes this appendix by pointing out something that should not be overlooked that this verse, in Hebrew, is somewhat complicated. "It has no finite verb but one Niphal infinitive construct, with suffix, and one Qal infinitive construct. In any event, Franz' testimony on this matter cannot be used as an accurate barometer for his understanding of Hebrew, let alone Greek."-p.563.

But we might also note that the NWT translation of the Hebrew was commended by Professor Kedar of Haifa University who said, among other things, "In the course of my comparative studies I found the NWT rather illuminating: it gives evidence of an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of Hebrew as well as an honest effort to faithfully render these in the target[English]language." Remember, to appraise the worthiness of a translation and it's translators it is not necessary to know the translator's names or credentials. The above Professor of Hebrew did not yet for him the NWT of the Hebrew Scriptures was "rather illuminating" and gave evidence of "an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of Hebrew" aswell as being an "honest effort to faithfully" translate the Hebrew into English. From this it would not be presumptious to believe that Professor Kedar would not consider the NWT translator's abilities, or even Franz's abilities if he were on the NWTTC, in the Hebrew of the O.T. to be "open to serious question."

It is also interesting to note that no Greek scholar with any credentials will endorse the New World Translation.

It is also interesting that almost all those scholars who will not "endorse" the New World Translation are either Trinitarians or those who work at a christian college that has as it's basis the Trinitarian view of God. One has only to read the other pages on this site to realise that all those places where there is some dispute there are other Bible translations, hence, 'Greek scholars with credentials', that would agree with a New World Translation rendering. The New World Translation Committee were not looking for any endorsement from Christendom's scholars. They were seeking the approval of the one whose Word they were translating. As they said themselves: "Our primary desire has been to seek, not the approval of men, but that of God, by rendering the truth of his inspired Word as purely and as consistently as our consecrated[set apart for holy use]powers make possible. There is no benefit in self deception. More than that, those who provide a translation for the spiritual instruction of others come under a special responsibilty as teachers before the divine Judge. Hence our appreciation of the need of carefulness."-Foreword, New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, p.7, 8.
One Greek scholar with credentials, Professor Jason BeDuhn(now of North Arizona University)has said :[The] 'New World Translation' is a high quality, literal translation that avoids translational glosses in it's faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations in use today."-see The Watchtower, February.1st, 1998. (In a private letter to us he wrote, "The article[from the aforementioned WT]accurately conveyed my overall assessment of the K[ingdom] I[nterlinear] T[ranslation]/N[ew] W[orld] T[ranslation].") Hence, again, this scholar saw no reason to think, as the critic has, that the abilities of those behind the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures(N.T.) "are open to serious question." On the contrary, he even says that in some ways the New World Translation is "superior" than that of "the most successful translations in use today." By "successful translations" he means specifically the New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version. Would anyone brush aside these remarks by one who knows the Greek of the New Testament? If they take his comments seriously, as we believe they should be, it is an endorsement which shows that the New World Translation committee members did have the required abilities to produce a scholarly translation of the Bible.

[We would] state that the theology brought forth in this translation is a fatal distortion of Biblical truth.

If by "Biblical truth" the critic here means the Trinity then we believe he has a problem. However, there may well be differences in the theologies of the producers of the New World Translation and that of it's trinitarian critics. But herein lies the real reason why the New World Translation is criticised. Not that its a dishonest and unscholarly translation but because a few scripture texts and words have been translated that shows what might be "Biblical truth" to some is in fact not biblical! It would be better for such writers, as one we have read here, to stop wielding their theological 'axes' in such a way that their own honesty is put in "serious question." There is no benefit in self deception wrote the New World Translation Committee. Who then is really deceiving themselves?

We ask you not to put your trust in such a bias translation of Holy Scripture or in the Society that has deceived many in the writing of it;

We ask you dear reader not to put your trust in such biased criticisms of the Bible version known as the New World Translation or such criticisms of the Society that has published it now for over 50 years with a circulation reaching over 100,000,000 worldwide in some 34 langauges. It is not "decieving" any but playing a part in bringing biblical truths to a great number of honest hearted people world wide. Jehovah has surely blessed it and will no doubt continue to do so.

We ask that your faith and trust be placed in the Lord Jesus Christ who said that unless you believe that HE IS the Eternal God (Ego Eimi - "I AM"), you will die in your sins (John 8:24).

Did Jesus mean for us to understand that he was claiming to be the Eternal God when he said, "Therefore I said to you, you will die in your sins. For if you believe that I am he[Gk.,ego eimi], you will die in your sins."-John 8:24.
Or, rather, was he claiming to be the Messiah? One such who believes this is the case is E.D.Freed who his article "EGO EIMI in John VIII. 24 in the Light of Its Context and Jewish Messianic Beliefs," Journal of Theological Studies, 33(1982),p.167 "In John viii. 24 the words ego eimi reveal John's unique concept of Jesus as the Messiah. Unless the Jews believe in the Messiah, they will die in their sins."

It is because of the danger of the perversion of the New World Translation of Holy Scriptures that this warning has been written. Our concern is for you to come to know the TRUE LORD Jesus Christ...

It is because of the blatant bias of critics who pervert the minds of those who read them and that write these kind of charges against an honest and scholarly translation that this page has been produced. Sadly,our concern is for you to come to know that those who behave in such a way might not be those who know the TRUE LORD Jesus Christ. He did not behave as these critics do. So where did they learn that they should do so?