Ianone,
Your post, apparently reprinted from a booklet by MacGregor Ministries, is a good example of how not to get through to thinking JWs. Much of it is simply a rehash of old arguments given by traditional, and somewhat fanatical evangelicals, such as about the trinity versus non-trinity (which is not going to be resolved in a mere booklet). While it contains some good arguments, it also contains a number of extremely bad arguments, such as the argument from authority.
I'll give some examples of the bad arguments. Note that I do not believe in the Bible or the God of the Bible, so I have no vested interest in doctrinal matters per se, but I certainly do have an interest in presenting good, solid arguments to JWs to get them out of their cult, rather than the biased, sectarian arguments in your post.
: . . . their New World Translation was done without any Greek or Hebrew scholars.
That depends on how you define "scholar". If you define it as someone who has a degree from an accredited learning institution, then the the statement is correct. However, it's also pretty meaningless, because intelligent people can become every bit as learned in a field as a Ph.D., if they put their mind to it and have access to good learning materials. And of course, there are plenty of Ph.D.'s who are rather stupid, biased, or have some kind of agenda to protect. So the above statement is nothing more than an "argument from authority" -- which is generally a fallacy.
Now, a number of former Bethel insiders have said in no uncertain terms that Fred Franz was virtually the sole translator of the NWT. While I think that Franz was insane, I also think that he was brilliantly insane (akin to Forrest Gump), and was brilliant enough to become quite well-versed in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. The other members of the NWT committee only did necessary busywork, like footnoting and cross-referencing.
An unbiased examination of the NWT shows that it certainly has its deficiencies, and in some cases the translation is a clear case of doctrinal bias that has little or no basis in good scholarship, but for the most part it's actually quite accurate. I say this from a personal examination of many passages and comparing them to the best of other translations and to various lexicons and other Greek/Hebrew references. In fact, whenever doctrinal bias is not a factor, the NWT tends to be among the most accurate in terms of word choice. But of course, the doctrinal bias ruins its usefulness to a large extent, because one cannot trust it without doing a lot of research. It's obvious that someone was bright enough to produce a workable translation, since these things don't just pop out of thin air.
In any case, all Bible translations contain some level of bias due to the biases of the translators. The NIV, while a very nice read, contains many examples of doctrinal bias. Translators, like all humans, are not free from bias.
The point that the NWT falsely claims to stick with consistent word choice is a good one. It demonstrably does not so stick, and it does not whenever doing so would cause doctrinal problems. This is a clear case of scholastic dishonesty by Fred Franz.
The booklet's argument about John 8:58 is nonsense. The passage in question has the Jews saying, "What? You claim to have seen Abraham?" Jesus sensibly answers in kind: "Yeah, man! I existed before Abraham!" But trinitarians would have Jesus say in response: "I am God." But that's a nonsensical answer. Furthermore, the argument ignores the fact that Greek, like French and some other languages, often uses a construct like "I am living here ten years" to express a past tense. In proper English this would be, "I have been livng here ten years." But English speakers have no trouble understanding either way of putting it. The claim that "ego eimi" means exclusively the present-tense "I am" ignores this fact. Here, the booklet's own criticism of the NWT's claim of consistency can be turned against it: it's obvious that context demands many Greek phrases be translated in different ways, or they won't make sense in context. John 8:58 is one of these. There exist a number of good translations that agree witht he NWT on the proper rendering of this passage. The argument also ignores the fact that a number of good scholars clearly point out these facts -- scholars who do not have the usual evangelical bias. So this argument is dishonest because it is extremely one-sided and doesn't present all the facts. I will also say that most of the rest of the argument is just plain stupid, being largely a grasping at straws.
The argument about John 17:3 being mistranslated by the NWT is valid. The doctrinal bias is clear, with the goal being to maintain the notion of a "little flock" and "faithful and discreet slave" through which God dispenses "spiritual food". All in support of the Watchtower authority structure.
The arguments about "ho theos" are also extremely one-sided and incomplete, and therefore scholastically dishonest. One of the best books ever written about certain disputed passages like John 1:1 is Murray Harris's Jesus As God. While Harris comes down solidly on the side of a trinitarian interpretation of these passages, he clearly explains his reasons why -- exhaustively -- and considers many counter arguments. This book is what MacGregor Ministries ought to pattern its argments after. The booklet's arguments are simplified to the point of absurdity.
For example, it argues that in John 1:1c, the phrase "kai theos en ho logos" (lit., "and god was the word") must be translated "and the Word was God" -- as if "the Word" and "God" were identically the same being. But good scholars like Harris point out that the situation is not so simple, and in fact, that simple claims like this amount to the heresy called Sabellianism. The fact is that in this passage, in order to avoid this heresy, "theos" (god) can only be used in the sense of nature, not being. Thus, the passage means that "the Word had the nature of theos". The argument then becomes, What does "the nature of theos mean"? It's like trying to determine the exact meaning of, "And human is Harry." Is Harry one of a large class of beings called "human"? Sure, because we all know that there are billions of humans. Is "the Word" one of a class of beings called "theos" or "god"? Sure, because the Bible says so, and the ancient Greeks believed in a large class of "gods". How does any of this relate to the claim that, in terms of the trinity, there are three and only three beings in the class of "god" ("theos")? Does the passage absolutely and necessarily use "theos" in the sense of "God" rather than "god"? How can this be proved? But again, the booklet fails to address any of such critical points, and is therefore scholastically incompetent or dishonest.
The booklet's complain about adding words to the text to make a paraphrase rather than a translation is again extremely ignorant, because all translations do that. Translation goals are generally considered to be in three general categories: extremely literal, somewhat literal, and free. All have their place. The NIV, for example, calls itself something like a "dynamic equivalence" translation, which is certainly not literal, but rather free. The New Living Translation, which I like very much, is extremely free, and therefore it can't be used to rigorously determine the meaning of certain passages, since the bias of the translators is quite evident. The NASB is quite literal. So is the KJV, except in some places. All of these contain clarifying words that do not appear literally in the Greek, because the passages would make little or no sense in English without them.
In conclusion, there are plenty of valid criticisms to make of the NWT and the JWs. Making bad arguments, as detailed above, will not convince thinking JWs to convert to evangelicalism. Indeed, it will make them run away. Furthermore, why would honest Christians have to resort to bad and dishonest arguments? As I've pointed out to many JWs who are similarly dishonest, it's self defeating.
One final comment, Ianone: it's obvious that you're a Textus-Receptus-only sort of Christian. IMNSHO, people who believe that are still in the dark ages of biblical scholarship.
AlanF
