Critique of the lastest New World Translation? (page 3)

dontfitin

Faye, yes, I caught the "other" thing. That was one thing that worried me, at least previously they indicated when they added a word, now they don't even bother.

FayeDunaway said: "How about the blatant addition of the word 'other' in Colossians 1. Original text says All things were created through him and for him. NWT said All (other) things were created through him and for him."

The NW translators did that perhaps because Paul the writer taught that:

‘God is the head of Christ’ (1 Cor 11.3)

‘God is the Father of Jesus Christ’ (Col 1.3)

‘Christ is seated at the right hand of God’ (Col 3.1)

These texts do not in any way show that Christ and God are one and the same.

Paul exalted Christ in his writings as much as he could, but made clear the following:

“But when it says that ‘everything’ has been subjected [to Christ], obviously the word [pan'ta] does not include God, who is himself the one subjecting everything to the Messiah.” (1 Cor. 15:27, CJB) (Brackets mine.)

If you notice carefully, Paul used the same Greek word (pan'ta) in 1 Cor. 15.27 as he did in Col. 1.16. Paul said the word pan'ta has an exception in regards to Christ. Can you see that?

Furthermore, it is so strange that many critics are going nuts over the NWT practice of adding ‘other’ at Col. 1:16 when the context of Paul conveys such, but do not complaint one bit when Trinitarian translators ADD ‘else’ within the context of Colossians as they do in Col 1.17 to cement the idea that Christ is exempt from creation. (See the NAB; ISV and the NLT among others.)

The subjection of Christ to God and the fact that the Greek word pan'ta excludes Christ from being the Almighty.

FayeDunaway

Hrm, my NKJV says in Collosians 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

It is still speaking of Jesus, here. I don't know what you mean about trinitarians adding 'else' to this verse, but I strongly believe no words should be added to the Bible, no matter what the agenda.

Dontfitin...incidentally, most christians do not believe the Father and the Son are the same person. This would be strange indeed. Rather, the Trinity is 'three persons in one." I do believe Jesus is God, and witnesses ignore or twist the many verses that support this. However I believe the father is given the natural superior respect deserving of a father.

As for the Holy Spirit, I do believe it is a person, there are several scriptures to support this, it is easy to do research online. But as for the Holy Spirit being equal to God, I dont fully agree with that. But I also don't think it's that important. A sin against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgiveable sin, however.

Wonderment

FayeDunaway:

Not all translators add "else" to Col 1:17. But some do.

NAB, (1970) “He is before all else that is. In him everything continues in being.”

CEV: “God's Son was before all else, and by him everything is held together.”

NLT: “He existed before everything else began, and he holds all creation together.”

Notice these translators add "else" to the Greek idea of "all" or "everything," the same way that the NWT add "other" to "all" in 1:16, but with a different agenda.

So, to use your argument that the NWT is adding to Scripture, Trinitarians are guilty of the very same thing.

The fact is that translators have to adapt their English idioms to translations from both Hebrew and the Greek. There is no way a translator can avoid altogether adding or removing some words from the original when doing translation work. It is fair to say, that both Trinitarian and non-trinitarians are "sincere" in their translation work. But they both err in the interpretation of the text. Bible readers end up choosing whatever fits their religious agenda best.

FayeDunaway

I'm kind of failing to see how adding 'else' is trinitarian.

He is before all things.

He is before all else.

If anything, it seems to me that the alternate 'else' is anti-trinitarian, similar to adding 'other' to vs. 16. You say that the idea was to exempt Christ from creation. Leaving the text as 'he is before all things' seems to do a better job of showing him exempt from creation than saying 'all else.'

In this case it seems to be less of an agenda to prove something, and more an alternate wording, not added wording, and the alternate wording does nothing to prove anything trinitarian imo. It's interesting you read it that way. It seems like you could be saying the opposite of what you are intending to say, which would be: 'Why don't you people criticize these other translations for saying 'else' in the following verse, because it sounds less trinitarian?' Maybe if their agenda was proving something unusual and saying they are the only mouthpiece of God, and everyone better listen to their unique 'truth' or be destroyed, it would be different.

I do agree with you in your last paragraph above when you say there is no way a translator can be 100% accurate in their attempts to translate.

Tenacious

@ dontfitin - oh yeah, definitely keeping a log.

I'll post my findings perhaps in about 6 months or so. I'm going to check the original language and note the intended expression and how this also compares with the RNWT. It may take me about 1-2 years to accomplish the Old Testament given other obligations. I'm working on the New Testament at the moment.

FayeDunaway

Tenacious this sounds like a book! I'll buy one :).

Wonderment

Faye:

The point I was trying to get across is not that Trinitarians are wrong by adding the word "else" in Col 1.17, but that most critics (ex-JWs included) making a big fuss against adding "other" to "all" as it appears in the NWT at Col 1.16 are oblivious to the fact that those who add "else" to "all" are actually supporting the NWT practice of including the concept of "other" or "else" to the Greek term pan'ta (all) applied in certain biblical texts.

Paul unequivocablly explains that the word "all" (pan'ta) in 1 Cor 15.27 excludes Christ from being equal to God. Heck, even modern English users do not always mean "everything" when they say "all."

FayeDunaway

I don't believe 1 cor 15:27 does exclude Christ from being equal to God. It says that God was not placed under christs feet. This is because they sit side by side.

Connie

Hi there,

There is a You tube channel by Tim Martin that specifically deals with the Trinity in relation to JW teaching. You might also find it helpful. Some of his comments helped me understand better the Orthodox Christian view of the trinity. It really is misrepresented in Watchtower literature. I also wanted to mention that Andrew Gabriel Roth discusses the Divine Name in one of his talks, that I found very informative. If you have a chance to read the Early Church Fathers writings it is good to see that they were clear that Jesus is God. Again the Watchtower misrepresents this fact in their literature, by selective quotations taken out of context. Some of these were the disciples of the Apostles. You can find their writings in the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line. There is so much information out there I found the hardest thing was sorting through it all. Have a wonderful day.

Connie

Critique of the lastest New World Translation?

Share this