Before we leave this passage, however, we need to listen to the objections that are raised by many today. Indeed, this passage is translated in such a way as to attempt to hide the truths we have just seen by the New World Translation published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Rather than repeating the phrase “all things” over and over again, as Paul did, the Watchtower translation inserts another word, “other,” into the phrase, making it read, “all [other] things.” [fn: When the NWT first came out, the word “other” wasn’t in brackets. However, such a hue and cry was raised, later editions included the brackets. However, the Society gladly drops the brackets when paraphrasing the passage (as in the 1991 publication, The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived, prologue, and the 1995 publication, Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life, p. 39).] The reason for the translation is transparent: since Watchtower theology insists Jesus is a creation, this passage must be rendered this way. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

13:00:00 - Category: Jehovahs Witnesses - Link to this article -

On Defending the NWT (II)

10/01/2005 - James White

   Another text our JW correspondent mentioned was John 8:58. Once again the commentary shows no sign of any serious interaction with the chapter I offered in The Forgotten Trinity nor any of the various scholarly articles on the use of evgw. eivmi at 8:58, 8:24, 13:19, 18:5-6, etc. Of course, it is hard to be overly critical (outside of his comments against me specifically) in that the vast majority of evangelicals, even those who have been privileged to grow up in sound churches, have no idea how rich and full and glorious John's testimony to the deity of Christ truly is. A few vague references to John 10:30 or John 1:1 is about as far as most can go on a topic that in reality not only defines our faith (how important is the deity of Christ to Christian exclusivism, for example---and could our ignorance of this great topic be part of the reason why inclusivism is making such inroads?). Just a thought in passing.
   The incessant usage of single-author, off-beat, "never heard of that one" translations is a hallmark of JW internet e-pologists. Obviously, just because someone publishes something, it does not follow that there is anything overly meaningful in its content. Indeed, just some of the versions cited give you a good idea of the level of this kind of apologetic: The Simple English Bible; the Living Bible; The Four Gospels & Revelation by Richmond Lattimore. Why not cite the Oxford Inclusive Version and the Reader's Digest Version for all it means to serious exegesis? The writer then kicks open a somewhat humorous "back door" by saying that even if it is rendered "I am," all Jesus is saying is that He pre-existed. That has "nothing to do" with Exodus 3:14. Of course, as I pointed out in my work on the subject:
   When dealing with theological issues, we often condense things and make connections that, in reality, take a little more proof than we have offered. This is nowhere better illustrated than in the connection that is alleged to exist between Jesus’ words in John 8:58 and the words of Yahweh in Exodus 3:14, “I am that I am.” You will find references to Exodus 3:14 in most commentaries on John 8:58, yet, those who deny the deity of Christ cry “foul!” and argue that such an immediate connection can’t be made. The strongest argument they can present is that the ego eimi portion of Exodus 3:14 isn’t really the assertion of divinity: the ho ohn portion is (ho ohn being translated as “the Being” or “the One Existing.”). ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Jehovahs Witnesses - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives