If you would like a free newsletter on this or other subjects, just give us a call at Christian Answers. The phone number is area code 512-218-8022. That's 512-218-8022. Or you could email us at cdebater at aol.com. That's cdebater at aol.com. Thank you. We're going to be analyzing a popular, I guess a popular, translation of the Bible called the New World Translation. In fact, the title of our show is Evaluating the New World Translation. Well, we have many slides that are going to be incorporated here to facilitate this analysis. So we bring up the first slide. which will show the title of our show, Evaluating the New, there it is, Evaluating the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. This is published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, better known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. If we go to the next slide, please, that's a better look at how their translation appears, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. And we're going to analyze if this is a good, readable, trustworthy translation. And our, I guess I could say our panel of experts here, we're going to take a look at this and see from a biblical perspective and from the original languages of the Greek if this can be determined. Okay, if we can go to our next slide. We'll basically be using a companion volume that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has come out with, the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. And what they've done here is they've published a Westcott and Hort, I think we can go to the next slide and maybe demonstrate this a little bit. It may be a little harder to read there, but those arrows point out that we've got a Greek text which reads across the top from a Westcott and Hort Greek text, one of the recognized translations or I should say Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Underneath it is the English words which correspond to the Greek immediately above it. And over to the right-hand side of the page, we have the New World Translation of those Greek scriptures, the Westcott and Hort. So you have, as you can see here, from a basic, from the Jehovah's Witness, interlinear that is, the Greek, underneath it the English, and across the page, the translation is rendered by the New World Translation. Okay, we'll continue on with some of the claims that the Jehovah's Witnesses make about their Bible. Let's go on to the next slide. As you can see there, they make some declarative statements. We want to make sure these are brought out immediately before we go into our analysis and evaluation. They say, we offer no paraphrase of the scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible where the modern Greek idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought. That way, we can best meet the desire of those who are scrupulous for getting, or as nearly as possible, word for word, the exact statement of the original. Okay, that's pretty concise. That's from the 4 to page 10 of the Kingdom Interlinear, published by the Watchtower. Now, if we go on to the next slide, please, we'll see some more statements there. And as you can see, it says, 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 and verses. And, of course, up above was what we had just read before. Okay, if we can go on to our next Slide here. Okay, so basically what we've just seen from the Ford of the Kingdom Interlinear, they make three declarative statements. One, that they have no paraphrasing of scripture. Two, they have as literal a translation as possible. And three, they assign to each major word one meaning. Okay, if we can advance on to the next slide. We're going to begin here. In this translation, I would like to say that the New World Translation was first printed in 1950. Actually, it came out in six volumes over a ten-year period from August 1950 through 1960. And then, of course, the Kingdom Interlinear Translation came along later, about 1969. Okay, we're going to begin this discussion with John chapter 15, verses 5 and then verse 7. And starting here in verse 5, we'd like our Greek scholar, Dr. Sam Reid, to start expounding on these scriptures, and then we'll just go from scripture to scripture through the rest of the show and see what conclusions we can come up with. Okay, Dr. Reid, could you expound on this passage of scripture, please? Alright, John 15 and verse 5. Jesus says, I am the vine, it's an emphatic I, ego eimi, I am the vine, you are the branches. And a kind of a literal translation here, the one remaining in me, or the one who remains in me, and I in him, this one is bearing much fruit, or this one will bear naturally much fruit. because or but apart from me, you are able to do nothing. Is there a specific question you want to raise? Okay, so you have translated the Greek into the English from the interlinear side of the translation. What I'd like you to do now, as the viewers at home can see the New World Translation on the right-hand column, how they've translated that passage that you've just read. on the Greek side. Now, could you read that from the New World Translation side there on the right-hand column and give me your understanding. Does this parallel and match perfectly what you see under the Greek on the left-hand side? Well, they use a phrase here, he that remains in union. There is nothing in the Greek that would say anything like in union. It simply says, He that remains in me. There is no in-union. And that phrase occurs again, I see there, in verse 5. I in-union with Him. There is no in-union anywhere. Nothing that would indicate in-union, just simply in. Okay, so are you... Would it be too bold of me to ask a leading question and say, would this appear to be possibly paraphrasing of the text? It is definitely paraphrasing. Okay, now, let's look down at verse 7 while we're here in this passage. I think it's in the next slide, in our sequence of slides that we have. We looked at verse 5, and now verse 7 there has now appeared on the screen. And without going through a lot of time to go through all this, I think we have something similar there again in verse 7. If you should remain in me, And then across the page in the New World Translation, we see, if you remain in union with me. Now, Dr. Reed, what would you say about that? Is that similar to what we just saw in verse 5? Yes, it's exactly the same. There is no word for union. So you're saying that there is no Greek word there in the text that implies in union, like they're saying. Not union, just in. Okay, just in, but not union. Now, it's the same phrase In the early part of verse 7, same way with 5, you remain in me and I remain in you. It's in in both cases. I see. It's exactly the same word. I and you, you and me. And it's interesting that their interlinear says, word for word, remain in me in verse 7, yet their own translation says in union with. Now, I've got Jackson Boyette here and I'd like to understand what he would think about this. What do you think the purpose is in adding that phrase union there, Jackson? Do you have any inkling why they would put that in the text if Dr. Reed says it's not even in the Greek? It's hard to know why they would put it in the text in view of the fact that in 7b where it says that these sayings of mine remain in you, they do not add the term union with their, in union with you. They evidently have something at stake in making sure that we understand in Christ, or in Jesus, as meaning in union with Christ, and in union with Jesus, and they're willing to add the word union in order to make that point. Well, I totally agree with what your observations are. Of course, I understand a lot of Jehovah's Witness doctrine, and one of their doctrines is that they deny the spiritual indwelling of the believer by Christ. And so, obviously, in this case, since they don't believe there's a spiritual indwelling of the believer by Christ, this would seem to benefit getting out of something that may not be too good for their doctrine. But anyway, let's continue on. Well, Larry, I might make the point here that in translation terminology this would not really be called paraphrase so much as interpretation, interpretive translating. Okay, so they're interpreting something into the text. Yes. Okay, but there is a chance it could be It could be interpretatively considered paraphrasing, if I could jump on the same words. Well, a certain amount of paraphrasing is necessary in good translation. Exactly. But interpretation is another thing. Okay. And I would call this interpretative translation rather than paraphrasing. Would you call this good translation? No. Okay. Now with that, let's go on to John chapter 17, the next slide. Come on the screen. whereas we just proceed right through these verses and see what we can come up with. John 17 verses 26, we have the passage there and I think it's without, once again, we won't have to use a whole lot of time here. We can kind of see that we see a similarity again. The latter part of verse 26 in John chapter 17, I'll let the good doctor here, Dr. Reed, analyzed for me how they have said it in the Greek there, which you love me in them, it may be an I in them. I mean, it seems like there's two in thems there in the Greek, but now on the right-hand side under the New World Translation, there seems to be some difference. Could you expound on that? Yes, it's the same as it was in the previous two verses that we've looked at. In the last part of verse 26 here, it's just, in them, in both cases, in them, in them. Whereas in their translation, they have here, in them, as it says in the Greek text in the first part, but in the second part, in union with them, in the second part. It's fairly clear here that this is an attempt to deny the doctrine of Christ indwelling the believer. in this particular instance. I would suggest that their efforts in the previous passage that we looked at, as I think about them, would not be an effort to deny so much the doctrine of Christ indwelling the believer, because there we're talking about in Christ, not Christ in us. But I would suggest that in the John 15 passage, which we looked at previously, it is an effort to deny the security of the believer, the fact that you can cease to be united with Christ. Here, it is clearly a denial of what Paul said in Galatians 2.20, I'm crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. And, of course, it's a denial of the clear teaching in the Gospel of John that I and my Father will make our abode in the believer. That's very clear at this point. I see. Thank you, Pastor Jackson Boyett. We haven't looked that verse up, but I'd be interested to see if they put in union for that Galatians passage. But anyway, we'll continue on here with some other verses. We'd like to go on now to 2 Corinthians 5, verses 19. That should come up next on the slides. There it is. We got 2 Corinthians 5, verse 19. And we have here the Greek, we'll let the good doctor go through that, and then we'll compare it to what the translation on the right-hand side, how that compares with the Greek on the left-hand side. Well, to be slavishly literal here, which will not always result in good English, the Greek text says, as that or as because God was in Christ the world reconciling to himself, that is, reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning or counting or considering to them their sins or their transgressions, and having put in us, having placed in us the word of the reconciliation. from what you just translated there from the Greek, how does that relate with the New World translation on the right? All right. They use the phrase, by means of Christ, as opposed to that God was in Christ. Do you think that's a major doctrinal shift? Well, it is not as strong, to say the least, as the Greek text is. God being in Christ... Well, the Greek implies... I mean, the Greek says, it does not imply, it says that God was in Christ. Whereas the translation here simply says that God was using Christ as a tool. There's a difference there. How would you... again, I put the question, is that good translation or paraphrasing or something else? Well, once again, I would call it interpretive. It seems that Paul has made the point in verse 18, right before that, that God was doing something by means of Christ, in that He reconciled us to Himself through Christ, then He goes on, I believe I'm talking about Paul here, the Apostle Paul goes on to strengthen that case by saying not only did God effect this reconciliation through the Messiah, through Christ, but that God, in essence, was in Christ doing this. In other words, you're saying that this verse asserts deity of Christ. Yes. God was in Christ. Yes. Maybe linking that in with the Word was God and the Word became flesh. That is the way this text has always been understood by Orthodox Christians. Okay, so we come to the same conclusions we had about those other verses. Let's go on now to the next slide. Let's look at Galatians chapter 1 and verse 16. It's now up on the screen. Look here, we have the verse. says to reveal the son of him in me in order that I may declare as good news him in the nations immediately not I put self up towards the flesh and to the blood well anyway it doesn't make a lot of sense there but I wanted to center in in verse 16 there on the phrase in me under the Greek and I'll let Dr. Reed take over and then look in the New World Translation it says to reveal his son in connection with and see if that's a Does the word connection with correspond with the Greek words there on the left-hand side? Well, there is no word that would indicate connection with. It's very much the same as in union with earlier. It's simply the word in. In all of these cases, it's simply the word in. The Greek word is always the same, but yet we're getting different. We're getting in union with, here in connection with. But the word, the Greek word is simply in, or sometimes that word is translated with. And we got by means of a minute ago in the other passage when it was, God was in Christ, and yet we found a different. Let me ask Sam a question. Sam, it's a weakening of the phrase to translate it to me also, isn't it? To reveal His Son to me, in order that I may know. Yes, that would not be the same thing. It's a different meaning entirely. To reveal Him to me means it's something God does, reveals to me, and that's the end of it. But to reveal Him in me means to reveal Him to other people through me. Christ is in me, and other people see Christ in me, is what Paul is saying. So what we're seeing here is maybe, it may be interpretive translating, but these interpretive translations are almost changing meanings that we'd normally understand by just reading the Greek without the interpretive translating. Well, interpretive translating always changes meaning. The only question is, is it correct interpretation or not? Okay, and how do you feel about that being correct? Well, I do not think that it is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Okay. As a whole. Right. Okay. It certainly is not in this text. Okay. With that said, let's go on to Romans chapter 8, verses 9 and 10. It shall come up on the screen, and we'll analyze that one. And see what we can find here. Romans 8, verses 9 and 10. And I think I'll find it sooner or later here. Here we go. Once again, not to belabor the point too much, but just to quickly point it out there, in verse 10 is what I like to particularly point at. It says, If but Christ in you, as we see on the screen there, be indeed body dead, and it goes on. But I wanted to point out Christ in you, and then how they translate it on the New World Translation side under verse 10, but if Christ is in union with. And I think we would agree that this is the same sort of thing we've been looking at through all these other passages. Is that correct? It appears that any time the word in appears, in connection at least with this particular thought, that they automatically add the word union. Occasionally some other word such as connection, but most of the time they add a word, union. There must be some doctrine they have that requires this, to keep it consistent. The doctrine that they're refuting or that they're denying the indwelling of Christ, they are denying so blatantly that they are willing to completely violate the context, because if you simply read verse 9 right above it in their own translation, However, you are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the Spirit. There again, harmony is completely superfluous. There's nothing in the Greek about that. It's just in, not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. There was just apparently no way they could ignore completely what the Greeks said or tap dance around it, because they do get this right, if God's Spirit truly dwells in you, but if anyone does not have Christ's Spirit, this one does not belong to him. And so, Paul here is being, by the way, quite Trinitarian. He's talking about God's Spirit, then he turns right around and calls it Christ's Spirit in the same verse. And the thought is being amplified in verse 10, but if Christ is in you, then your body indeed is dead, meaning doomed on account of sin, but the Spirit, meaning your human spirit, is alive or alive on account of righteousness, and that would mean Jesus' righteousness. But the point is that verse 9, even in the way they've translated it, just fairly screams for verse 10 to mean Christ indwelling the believer. Yes. I think this is a good illustration of a point that I think is very important. It is impossible to translate out of Scripture essential doctrines. Yes. No matter how poor or even how deliberately this task may be undertaken, it is not possible to translate essential doctrines out of Scripture because they are there so many times in so many different ways that it will slip past a person even if he is attempting to. That's a good point, Doctor. And with that said, let's go on to our next slide and see what we have here. Our next slide Think that says that's from the Ford of the Reminder I should say from the Ford of the kingdom earlier that they offer no paraphrase of the scripture And that was just to remind our viewers of what that was stated earlier in their own Bible Let's go on to the next slide if we could Okay, that's first that's Corinthians, I mean Colossians chapter 1 verse 16 I think so far we've We've seen something that may bring in a question that forward on page 10, but let's go on with Colossians chapter 1 verse 16 and Go for from there. Let's see. I know I know Knowing Jehovah's Witness theology as I do. I know they make a big play on the word firstborn and first Corinthians. I mean Colossians 1 15 and But anyway, that's another story, and they go on here in verse 16 and following to say something about the person of Christ and what he's done. They say in him it was created the all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible, the things invisible, and so forth. And what I wanted to point out here is on the left-hand side under the Greek it says it was created the all things implied, and then on the right-hand side in their translation we have in brackets here And verse 16 says, because by means of him all brackets other things were created. And I would like to ask Dr. Reed about this translation. Well, there is nothing in the Greek text to justify other. I mean, there is no word other in the Greek text, but they indicate that by the brackets. And they're quite insistent on it. They do it in 16b and in 17. They keep doing it. Do you see any justification for, usually like we have amplified Bibles and things of this nature that are supposed to bring out a meaning, but from the Greek, as you know it here, do you see any real reason for putting the word other in brackets there, from the Greek text? The only reason anybody puts anything in brackets is to show that it is not in the Greek text. So by their own admission, it is not in the Greek text. It certainly is not in the Greek text. Do you see any reason why they put it there? Well, once again, I would assume that there is some doctrine that would be violated if it were not there, some doctrine that they believe and teach. But as I say, I'm not terribly familiar with their doctrine, so I don't know exactly what that doctrine is. What's interesting here is when they first came out with the New World Translation in 1950, they had no brackets around the word other. It wasn't until years later they finally put the brackets there. But other was in the translation. They did translate it. They put the word other without brackets right into the translation. I see. According to their 1950 New World Translation. Would you see any justification for doing that? Oh, absolutely not. Okay, so obviously they are trying to avoid a particular Bible doctrine, and what I would like to point out here is a doctrine that Jehovah's Witnesses are trying to avoid, is that Jesus is a creator of all things. Because if Jesus were a thing himself, how could he create all things? A thing cannot create itself. Therefore, the Jehovah's Witnesses obviously here are trying to imply that he created all other things beside himself, or beside God, I should say. And they play on that word firstborn from 1st Corinthians, I mean 1st Colossians, Colossians 1, 15, I don't know why I keep, I got Corinthians on my brain here, but they try to say the word firstborn means that he was created first. you know, Bible context points out that David was known as the firstborn, yet he was the youngest of seven sons. The word firstborn has always been traditionally known as a title of preeminence. I think that's even brought out in verse 18 of Colossians 1, where the word firstborn of the dead, and it mentions preeminence. So, I think that refutes their argument, but I believe they are literally trying to force words into the context of the passages to literally change the meaning. With that said, let's go on and continue to look and see what we find. Philippians 2, verse 9. Next slide, please. As we race through our Bibles here to try to find that. I'm still looking. Let's see. Philippians 2, 9. I think I finally honed in on it. We have here in Colossians, I mean, Philippians 2, 9, we have in the middle of that verse there on the left-hand side under the Greek, it says, And he graciously gave to him the name, the over every name. In order that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those underground okay, and so forth There's something else. I'll point out in a minute there, but doctor we see on the left-hand side It says over every name and then we look over to the new world translation verse 9 there and we see it says And the name that is above every name other name and this time without brackets no brackets but there's there's no justification in the greek text for the word other are you are you saying this is uh scholastic dishonesty i'm just saying that there is no basis for the word other uh in in an english translation okay it's not in this text i would assume that they think from somewhere else there's basis for it, but there certainly is not in this text. There's no Greek word there for other. I would substantiate that. It's not a literal rendering. Exactly, not a literal rendering. I would argue once again they're trying to escape a Bible doctrine that's just constantly appearing throughout the Bible as you were talking about before. There are certain essential doctrines that appear that are too numerous for anyone to escape from. I'd like to also point out And if we can have that slide back, let me see if the slide shows our readers there. It doesn't, so we'll go on and pick it up later. I've got another point I'd like to make down in verse 11, but we'll wait until later. Okay, let's go on to Hebrews chapter 9, verse 27, and take a look in Hebrews and see what we can find here. It's a thick Bible. Let's see. All right. Here we are. It says, men, looking on the left hand side under the Greek, it says, men wants to die after but this thing, judgment. Okay. And then on the right hand side it says, and as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this, a judgment. Okay. Dr. Reed, once again, we're utilizing your expertise and your knowledge of the Greek, and we see there in the Greek, men wants to die after but this thing, judgment, but in the New World Translation it says, for all time. Is that an accurate translation? There's no word there specifically saying time in the Greek text. It simply says wants to die. Wants to die? There's no word for time or no phrase meaning for all time. Are you saying that for all time is just simply... It simply isn't in the Greek. It's just added into the text. Right. This is... apparently they're trying to escape perhaps another Bible doctrine by doing this. without belaboring or using too much time here. I suspect it has something to do with the soul sleep and things of this nature, as they believe that once you die, you just cease to exist until God resurrects you at some other time. Well, you know, Larry, there are others, there are other groups and individuals who believe that, who believe that the soul sleeps. That's true. And there are some of those who've had a part in a Bible translation, but they have not allowed this viewpoint to affect their translating. They have been honest in their translating. Now, I have never carefully looked at this translation before, but I'll have to say that I've just never seen a translation that so blatantly ignores what the Greek text says and puts something else in its English translation. And would you, I suppose simply by you being on the show, you'd be willing to stake your reputation on what you just said? Well, every place you have brought up, I suppose that there are some places that they have translated accurately, but every place you have brought up, it has been an inaccurate translation. I see. Well, let's continue on with our survey here and see what else we can find. I might add one other thing, as long as we're talking about the translation in general. It seems to me that their committee shows a lack of understanding of what translation is in that foreword that you read at the beginning of the program, to say that they're not going to have any paraphrase. I would also like you to note, Doctor, as long as you've got your open, look at the front page of that Bible, turn over a few pages, and read a few more, right before the foreword, to the very front, right there, that page. What does it say right at the first paragraph? Well, it says, presenting a literal word-for-word translation into English under the Greek text as set out in the New Testament in the original Greek. Now, this simply is not possible to do. Now, under the Greek text, they have come, I think, as close in most cases as it's possibly come. But their translation in the right-hand column does not reflect that. But it simply is not possible to make a literal word-for-word translation of any document from one language to another. This simply is not possible, and for it to make sense into the target language, that is, the language into which it's being translated. I noticed one word in a passage we were looking at a while ago, one Greek word was translated into seven English words, and that was a good translation. Translation requires... Context. Well, it's a transfer of thought. Translation is a transfer of thought from one language to another. It's not a transfer of one word for another word. I'm reminded of the joke about the translating machine, and someone fed the statement, out of sight, out of mind, into the translating machine, and it came out in the target language, blind and insane. Because you have to go from idiom to idiom. You have to, and you cannot be slavishly literal in any translation, and any translation that claims to be is out to mislead at the very outset. And so y'all are making points well made by both. But what we're seeing on these examples we're specifically looking at, we're seeing a violation. of these rules of idiom and things of this nature. What I'd like to do now is go to the next slide as time races by here while we're analyzing. I doubt we'll get through everything, but we'll just make the best of it. I'd like to bring up Matthew chapter 25, verse 46. I think that's what we have on the screen right now. We'll just get some understanding here. We see that it says at the top of the page, under the Greek, we'll go off these into lopping off everlasting, the but righteous ones into life everlasting. And then the translation over to the right says, these will depart into everlasting cutting off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life. Dr. Reed, comments? I don't know every word of the New Testament in Greek, or every word of the Old Testament in Hebrew. I still use a dictionary. And that word, which they have translated here lopping off, I would have to look up to make what I would consider a good, strong comment on it. According to Vine's expository dictionary of New Testament words, That particular word means punishment, means correction. Is that kallisis? Yes, kallisis means correction, punishment, or penalty. I see. Now, I think our next slide might bring this more to light, what we're talking about here. Can we have that next slide and see what we have here? I think that's ax. 421. Am I wrong or right? I can't make it out. I think it's Matthew 27. Is that Matthew 27? Okay. Oh, no. Wait a minute. It is. It is Acts. Is it? 421. Right. Very good. I wasn't quite sure, but sure enough. Okay. Look what we have here. It says over here about the verse 21 under the Greek says they but having further threatened they release them nothing finding the how they might lop off I don't want to go into all it sounds so crazy but the point I want to get to is that that Greek word there based on that root of Colossus I think we were looking at a minute ago in the other text it says they might lop off and now look on the translation side in verse 21 Down in the middle of it there, it says, since they did not find any ground on which to punish, them, and on account of the people, because they were all glorifying God over what had occurred. A clear instance of they're not translating the same Greek word in the same way every time, which they claim to do. You can see that perhaps if they had translated over here, everlasting punishment, instead of cutting off, it would have changed the meaning tremendously. It would have violated their doctrine of annihilation. If they had done that. Since they don't believe in everlasting punishment in hell or something like that so possibly now another violation of translation. A good point here is in looking at two verses where the same word occurs, this is the best way to find out what a word means, is to look at it in many different contexts. It's a better way than looking up in the dictionary. In fact, that's the way people who make dictionaries of ancient languages, that's the way they make them. If they find a word that they don't understand, they don't know what it means, they start looking for it everywhere they can find it, and gradually they come to understand it by its context. And here we can see, even by the example here of these two men, that it's talking about some sort of punishment, unless they're talking about cutting off their heads, which does not seem likely for the Jews to do, or for a climate of this nature. Right. Okay, good point. Now we're going to look at Matthew chapter 27. It'll be in the next slide, I believe, coming up on the screen. Okay, Matthew 27. We've got verse 50, I think it is here, and we've got Jesus. I'm reading it in the Greek. "...thee, but Jesus, again having cried out to voice great, he let off the Spirit." That's under the Greek, but now the translation side says, "...again Jesus cried out with a loud voice and yielded up his breath." I'd like to ask Dr. Reed again to... I know he doesn't know every Greek word, but... Well, this is a very common word, Penelma, our word pneumatic. He is silent. Our word pneumatic comes from this. Now, this is very much alike in Hebrew and in Greek. The same word can indeed mean wind or spirit. And because it can mean wind, some, in some context, have translated it breath. That's not the same word that's used for breath elsewhere in the New Testament. But I would say in this instance, while I don't agree with the view that they are presenting here, I would not make the same accusation against them of dishonesty in translation itself. Okay. That if you take away the context, it is possible to translate the word Nelma as breath. Okay, now with that in mind. But with the context, it's a different thing. Now, speaking of the context, let's look at the next slide. Luke 23, 46, should be the verse coming up. And this is in the same context that we just looked at Matthew in. Jesus is on the cross. He's crying out. And we have almost the same situation except from a different perspective. And looking at verse 46 in Luke 23, under the Greek there, it says, let's see, that Jesus said, Father, into hands of you I am placing beside the spirit of me this, but having said, he expired. Now, in their translation, I assume that's the same Greek word. It is the same Greek word. And we're in virtually the same context as we were over in Matthew. But yet here, in their translation side, they now translate it as, I entrust my spirit. Yes. Now, does that do anything? Does that fall into what you were just telling me a minute ago? Well, they just are not consistent as Jackson pointed out a while ago they're not doing what they claim they would do and a literal word for word Well, it's major word has one. Yes each major word having one One do you have any clue as to why they translated breath back in Matthew? well simply because under Jehovah's Witness doctrine, they don't believe that Jesus Christ the had a spirit when he died on the cross he he literally ceased to exist. And then Jehovah God had to recreate him as the Archangel Michael. That's who they believe Jesus is. Archangel Michael. He was Archangel Michael, then he was recreated, and the woman Mary became the man Jesus. And then when he died, he ceased to exist. His body was annihilated. There was no bodily resurrection. And then, because they have the doctrine of annihilation like soul sleep, they couldn't possibly you know, expound this teaching that Jesus' spirit went on after he died. So, they had to escape that doctrine. My translating spirit is breath, which, as Sam has pointed out, they are justified in doing, but they're not willing to do it here in what is virtually a parallel passage about certainly a parallel event. Well, it would sound funny, wouldn't it? Sure. I entrust my breath Yeah, that's right. Especially since they don't believe there's a life force after death. How would that doctrine that you just described be reconciled with this verse in Luke that we just read, I entrust my spirit to God? Well, they have real Real problems. They can't cover every base. So densely layered, you can't be too careful. And so, it's interesting what they can do, you know. Of course, they believe that when he died and ceased to exist as a man, he was recreated as a mighty spirit creature. So they may be linking it in with that doctrine they have of him being raised an invisible spirit creature. But, you know, it's hard to say the way the translations go. Well, I can see we're running low on time. Something is emerging, though. We have about this. You know what? It's emerging that this is an untrustworthy translation. That's what we're hoping to get to. We've got tons more verses we'd love to go to. What I'm going to do is a rapid fire through here, gentlemen, and then we've got four minutes left, and I'm going to just get those slides going. If we can get those slides Up on the screen, what's the next slide? And we'll just do a quick look at what we can look at. I think this is Hebrews 12, 23. We've got to keep our comments quick if we want to get as much information as possible. I'm just going to read the points I want to make here and then go on to the next text. Y'all can throw in any comments you want briefly. I'm reading out of the Greek. It says, and to spirits of righteous ones having been perfected, And then over there under the Hebrew, in their New World Translation, it says, the spiritual lives of righteous ones who have been made perfect. It looks like a, you know, how do spirits end up as spiritual lives? You know, it looks like a completely different thing here. Let's go on to Philippians 2, 10 and 11. Philippians 2, 10 and 11, as time races by, There's just never enough time in the day, you know? But Philippians 2, 10 and 11, we were over there earlier, and I was about to make a point that I never got around to, but I'd like to point out here that here in Philippians 2, 10 and 11, particularly 10, I mean particularly 11, we see that every knee shall bow every time confessed, that Jesus is Lord, or as they say in their translation, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Okay? Now, we know this is taken directly from Isaiah 45, 23, where Jehovah God is talking in the Old Testament, saying, unto Him every knee will bow and every tongue swear. Paul seems to directly apply that to Christ here. We have the word kurios over the word Lord there, for Lord Jesus Christ in the Greek. As our time flies by I would like to keep your mind on that we've got Lord Jesus Christ in Philippians 2 11 now, let's quickly jump over to Romans 14 11 Romans 14 11 As time is almost out on us here 14 11 We have a passage there Dr. Reid, I want you to do this one for me. You see the word kurios there. I think it's the same Greek word in Romans 14 11 and it's taken from that Isaiah 45 23 passage, which I just mentioned a minute ago. Now look at that Greek word and now look across the page in their translation and see how they translate that word kurios for Lord in a New World translation. Well, they translated Jehovah and It is true that in the Old Testament, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was the first translation ever made of the Old Testament Scripture, that most of the time the name of God was translated kurios. But the fact of the matter is, you didn't ask this, but the fact of the matter is nobody knows how to pronounce the name of God. It comes from Tetragrammaton. Yes. Y-H-W-H. It has not been known for centuries how the name of God is pronounced. One thing is known for sure, and that is that Jehovah is not the correct pronunciation. That didn't come around until about 1500 or 1600 the point I wanted to make briefly is we've got less than a minute now is They've translated the word curious there as Jehovah yet over in Philippians chapter 2 verse 11 where we saw in Kyrios, Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, taking from the same verse out of Isaiah 45, 23, they translated Lord. In other words, Jehovah in Romans 14, 11, yet it's only Lord in Philippians 2, 11. And I think a good point to end on today would be the point that they were not completely able to obliterate in their own very ineffective translation, and that is that Jesus is Jehovah. Amen. That's the point I'd like to point out, is they could have easily translated that last passage out of Philippians 2.11 as, Jesus is Jehovah to the glory of God the Father. This concludes the first portion of Evaluating the New World Translation. And now, in the final moments, Dr. Sam Reed and Larry Wessels talk about the all-important verse, John 1.1. We have the Greek text there above the English. On one side, it says, God was the Word at the conclusion of those clearly marked areas there on the left-hand side, I should say. And on the right-hand side, it says, God the word was a God. Well, we're going to establish by dr. Reed who the word is and whether he's God or is he a God you saw the previous screen that showed and the word was God and now we see this slide which shows that he is called a God now we want to find out from the Greek is he God or is he a God now if I can go to the next slide that we have there on Now, this is from the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible, where they claim that John 1 says that that Greek word there, theos, should be translated a god. Okay, if we can go to the next slide. The next slide gives some of the reasonings why, and I'll read it here. It says, in the original Greek, there is no definite article ho, which in the Greek means, or in English means the, before theos, which is the Greek word for God. And it is presumptuous to say that such a definite article is to be understood so that the sentence should therefore be translated, quote, and the word was God. That would mean that the word was the God with whom the word was said to be. This is unreasonable. And they go on to argue that you can't translate it that way. Okay, now with that, put up as a backdrop as our analysis is who the Word is. Is He God? Is He a God? We're going to ask our Greek expert here, Dr. Sam Reed, to give us an analysis from the Greek text as to who the Word is and is it a God or God? And then go from there. All right, Larry. It sounds to me like you're saying that this group and perhaps some other people are saying that where there's a definite article in Greek, we should always have a definite article in English. And where there's no definite article in Greek, we should have no definite article in English. Is this correct? That's the basic premise of that page we read there from the Kingdom Interlinear Translation put out by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, page 1158. They do claim that you can only translate it John 1 1 as a God according to the lack of a Definite article V before the second theos God in that passage in the in in the beginning was a word words with God and a word was God or a God that is where the real crux of the situation comes down to we're gonna depend on you now to one answer who is this word that John 1 is talking about, and then what does the Greek text have to tell us about it? All right, now let me preface my remarks by saying I, of course, have heard of the group you mentioned, but I'm not terribly well acquainted with their doctrine or with their translation, so I'll confine my remarks mostly just to the biblical text and what it means. Right, only for a backdrop, just to... First, let me say that the presence or absence of the definite article in Greek does not correspond to the presence or absence of the definite article in English. Now, I'm sure this sounds terribly complex and difficult to understand. It really isn't all that difficult to understand. The definite article in English is the. The indefinite article in English is a or an. The dog, that's a definite dog. The dog means a particular, the specific dog. A dog might mean just any old dog. Say, well, we know in English what the definite article means and we use it without thinking or we leave it out without thinking. Greek has the definite article, like the, but it has no indefinite article, such as a or an. So keep that in mind as we pursue here the first verse of the first chapter of the Gospel of John. As I say, the presence or absence in English and Greek of the definite article does not correspond. It's just not the same. If you attempt to always put a definite article in English where it is in Greek, it will not make sense. By the same token, if you always leave it out in an English translation, where it's left out in Greek, again, it will not make good sense in English. And so it sometimes has to be supplied, sometimes it has to be left off. All translations put the word the in after the first word here of the first verse of John, in the beginning, not in a beginning. Nobody would say that there were many beginnings, and we're talking here about one of the beginnings. Nobody translates it, in a beginning. Everybody translates it, in the beginning. It doesn't make good sense in English to say, in beginning. We don't say that. So, a good translation here, even though the definite article is not there in the Greek language, a good translation would say, in the beginning, was the word, the Logos, whatever the Logos is. We don't know at this point what the Logos is. and the Logos, the Word, was with God." Now, of course, here we have the definite article, ton theon, the God. Now, as I understand what you said, Larry, The claim is here by some that since the definite article here is here, it's referring to the true God, the God of all things. That's correct. The definite article, the God, specifies the Almighty One, but the second God in that phrase, since it has the absence of the before it, they claim this is proof that it can be the Almighty God in that case. Well, this simply is not true. This is not the case. As I say, the use or non-use of the definite article does not correspond between English and Greek. There are many differences between languages. Any two languages you want to pick, whether it be English and Greek or whatever, you're going to find some differences like this. And here, Every translation, other perhaps than one made by someone who's already come to a different conclusion, would have to say, with God, and the word was God. The Logos was God. Not a God, but God. And I think that any translation you'll pick up, unless it is made by this particular group, will read in that fashion. Now, I think we can go through the rest of the first chapter, or at least a part of it, the first chapter of the Gospel of John, and see that this is the case. Check out our websites. BibleQuery.org. This site answers 7,700 Bible questions. HistoryCart.com. This site reveals early church history and doctrine, proving Roman Catholicism is not historically or doctrinally viable. MuslimHope.com. This site is a classic refutation of Islam, a counterfeit religion created by Muhammad. Free newsletters are also available.