Ask me anything, if you want
1 Like
Welcome @Gospel
If you are open to a free exchange of scripture and having honest conversations, then glad you are here.
Peter
1 Like
Hi @Gospel ! Here’s a question for you:
What do you, as a Jehovah’s Witness, believe happens to a person after death?
1 Like
Hi,
I believe the soul is mortal, based on the statement at Ezekiel 18:4 that “the soul that sins, it shall die”, and thus I believe the soul does not continue to live after one dies. Death is a state of non-existence (Ecclesiastes 9:5: “For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all”). I believe that the only hope for life after death is in the resurrection.
Hell (hades or sheol) is not a place of fiery torment, but rather the symbolic common grave of mankind, a place of unconscious non-existence. Gehenna, the Bible word commonly translated as “hellfire” describes a judgment of complete destruction, from which resurrection is not possible. Complete destruction does not allow for literal “torture” of the wicked, as the deceased person is not conscious. Based on this, I believe that parables such as that of "the rich man and Lazarus should not be interpreted literally, but that such references are speaking of symbolic death, not the physical death of actual individuals.
Thank you PeterC, glad to be here 
Honest question, I mean, since you asked, how do you read these few passages?
" For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6
I will give you my view of these in my response to your response.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1
A little later
" And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14
Jesus made these claims.
" Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58
" Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
"Now, while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.”
He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, 'The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions." Matthew 22:42-46
There are many more, but I’m honestly asking how you read these. None of the Scribes or Pharisees could answer the last one. Can you, other than the obvious?
Peter
Jesus is a god. “God” means a strong one. Christ is called “The mighty god” at Isaiah 9:6, “a god” at John 1:1, and “the only-begotten god” at John 1:18. JEHOVAH is not the only god or strong one.
The very fact that JEHOVAH is called the Almighty God indicates that there are other gods not as mighty as him, not almighty like him.
Spiritual beings refer to angels, demons, and the like.
They inhabit the heavenly realm, which is parallel to our earthly reality.
Now all of these spiritual beings have their own unique characteristics, but the biblical authors have one word that can refer to all the inhabitants of the spiritual realm. In Hebrew, the word is “Elohim.” In Greek, it is “Theos.”
But here is the thing: this word gets translated in lots of different ways, depending on which being is referred to: angels, god with a lowercase “g,” or even God with a capital “G.”
So one word can refer to any of these beings. That is because Elohim is a category title. It can designate any spiritual being that belongs to the heavenly realm. So it’s a title, not a name.
It’s kinda like the word ‘mom’! The word ‘mom’ can refer to lots of really different kinds of people, but they all share in common the same role in a family.
And then, let’s say a group of brothers and sisters are talking and one says, ‘Hey, it’s Mom’s birthday!’ They’re using the title like it’s a name. But it would be clear that they are referring not to any mom, but their mom.
And the same goes for the biblical authors. They called their God ‘JEHOVAH’. But they also sometimes refer to him with the category title ‘Elohim,’ using it like a name because they all know who they are referring to.”
JEHOVAH is in a class of his own, not like any other. Which is why they say things like, ‘JEHOVAH is the Elohim of Elohim’ (that is, the chief Elohim among all the others). Or they will say, ‘There is no Elohim besides JEHOVAH,’ meaning no other spiritual being compares to him because only he is the ruler and creator of all things.
In short, among all of the spiritual beings out there, only one is the source and creator of all things, including the Elohim. That is biblical monotheism: that one Elohim, JEHOVAH, is above all other Elohim, the other spiritual beings.
I think The Living Bible puts John 8:58 very nicely. The Jewish leaders complaint that Jesus was too young to have seen Abraham, and Jesus answered:
“The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!”
We understand that that is the point of his answer: he had seen Abraham because he existed even before Abraham. And I think that this is by far the most natural way to understand this verse.
I know some Trinitarians believe that Jesus’ use of the words “ego eimi” (“I am”) is a kind of proof that he is God Almighty. That’s why most Trinitarian translations of this particular verse sound like weird English: “before Abraham was, I am”.
The reason why they believe this verse proves the Trinity is that God in Exodus 3:14 said “I am who I am”, and they think Jesus here is claiming to be “I am” (JEHOVAH) of Exodus.
But that interpretation has several problems:
• For once, interpreting “ego eimi” as a proper name doesn’t make sense gramatically. “Before Abraham was, Richard” doesn’t make sense either.
• On the other hand, “ego eimi” is an extremely common expression in Greek, and it wouldn’t make sense to understand that any time someone says “ego eimi” is claiming to be God. Just ten verses later, in John 9:9, the blind man that was cured by Jesus uses the expression “ego eimi”, and nobody understands that he was claiming to be God. And there are plenty of other examples.
• And if that is not enough, Exodus 3:14 says: “God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”” (New International Version).
In the Greek Septuagint, the expression “I am who I am” is not “ego eimi ego eimi”, but “Ego eimi ho on” (“I am the one who is”, more or less). And then it says: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘Ho on’ has sent me to you”.
So, here “ego eimi” is just the subject and verb of the sentence; the equivalent of the name of God is not “ego eimi”, but “ho on” instead!
I have two questions.
-
What is your beliefs on the 3rd Commandment to not tale the Name of the LORD in vain?
-
Do you believe willfully lying is a sin?
-
This law forbids the misuse of God’s name. But it does not forbid the respectful use of his name.
-
Yes
Sorry for my delayed response to your swift reply, I had something come up.
- “He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.” - Psalms 111:9 (kjv)
-
So revered an sacred was his name that Gods name was mentioned only once a year by the high priest on the Day of Atonement, once he went into the holy of holies. Such a contrast to today wouldn’t you say?
-
How does the JW Bible word that verse?
- Just try to remember you cIicked that you have read, and do agree to follow, the TOS here.
That said, as PeterC iterated… If you’re here for an open and free exchange of scripture and honest conversations, then welcome. Glad to have you aboard.
At some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name. Just what basis was originally assigned for discontinuing the use of the name is not definitely known. Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak.
Yet the Hebrew Scriptures themselves give no evidence that any of God’s true servants ever felt any hesitancy about pronouncing his name.
Non-Biblical Hebrew documents, such as the so-called Lachish Letters, show the name was used in regular correspondence in Palestine during the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E.
Another view is that the intent was to keep non-Jewish peoples from knowing the name and possibly misusing it. However, Jehovah himself said that he would ‘have his name declared in all the earth’ (Exodus 9:16; 1 Chronicles 16:23, 24; Psalms 113:3; Malachi 1:11, 14; Isaiah 64:2).
In the first century C.E., there first appears some evidence of a superstitious attitude toward the name. Josephus, a Jewish historian from a priestly family, when recounting God’s revelation to Moses at the site of the burning bush, says: “Then God revealed to him His name, which ere then had not come to men’s ears, and of which I am forbidden to speak.” (Jewish Antiquities, II, 276 xii, 4)
The Jewish Mishnah is somewhat more explicit. Some of the Mishnaic traditions concerning the pronouncing of the divine name are as follows:
• In connection with the annual Day of Atonement, Danby’s translation of the Mishnah states: “And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and say, ‘Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!’” (Yoma 6:2)
• Of the daily priestly blessings, Sotah 7:6 says: “In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word.”
• Sanhedrin 7:5 states that a blasphemer was not guilty ‘unless he pronounced the Name,’ and that in a trial involving a charge of blasphemy a substitute name was used until all the evidence had been heard; then the chief witness was asked privately to ‘say expressly what he had heard,’ presumably employing the divine name.
• Sanhedrin 10:1, in listing those “that have no share in the world to come,” states: “Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters.”
Yet, despite these negative views, one also finds in the first section of the Mishnah the positive injunction that “a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God],” the example of Boaz (Ruth 2:4) then being cited.—Berakhot 9:5.
Taken for what they are worth, these traditional views may reveal a superstitious tendency to avoid using the divine name sometime before Jerusalem’s temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. Even then, it is primarily the priests who are explicitly said to have used a substitute name in place of the divine name, and that only in the provinces.
Sorry, my new friend. This is not correct. Well, it is in the New World Translation, but that is simply because they added the “a”. καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In Greek, the word for God (theos) here does not have the definite article “the” (ho). Because English uses “a” to indicate an indefinite noun, you argue that it should be “the Word was a god.” This is the translation used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the New World Translation.
Correct. Because He is God.
Greek doesn’t actually have an indefinite article (a/an). Instead, the absence of “the” often emphasizes the quality or nature of the subject. Most scholars argue that John omitted the article to avoid saying “The Word was the God” (which would imply the Word is the same person as the Father), instead choosing a structure that says the Word has the very nature of God.
Where is Jesus called “God” (Theos) in Greek?
In the Greek New Testament, where Jesus is explicitly called ὁ θεός (ho theos—literally “the God”):
John 20:28: When Thomas sees the resurrected Jesus, he says: “My Lord and my God!” (Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου). This is one of the clearest uses of the definite article referring to Jesus.
Hebrews 1:8: The author quotes a Psalm and applies it to the Son: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός…).
Titus 2:13: Paul writes about the appearing of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ). Grammatically, the single article “the” covers both “God” and “Savior,” linking them to one person: Jesus.
Exactly. Jesus repeated the same thing, and yes, it means He is claiming to be God. This is what they wanted to stone Him. Even if you try to make it “I am the one who is.” That means He God, and then Jesus, are sateing they are. Simply, they are. Everything, everywhere, in the past, present, and future. They ARE God.
Perhaps it is difficult to understand when the New World Translation has been translated and changed in such a way to agree with the JW religion. This does not make it correct.
Peter
Jesus is not the Almighty God in John 1:1.
The best translation of John 1:1c, the final clause, would actually be: “and the Word was divine.”
This is because kai theos ēn ho logos places theos prior to the copula in a predication and omits the definite article, meaning it should be interpreted qualitatively. It’s not a reference to a specific entity; it’s a reference to a quality, specifically, the quality of divinity. This is according to the consensus view of even evangelical Trinitarian Greek scholars.
Now, they will then presuppose a bunch of philosophical frameworks that did not exist when the Gospel of John was written, such as that the God of Israel entirely exhausts the category of deity, or that you can have multiple divine persons comprising a single unified divine essence. But there is absolutely no evidence that any such frameworks were actually operative in the first century CE. They are later theological developments.
So John 1:1 just says that the Word is divine. It does not say the Word is the very God of Israel. That requires later developed philosophical frameworks.
Moreover the distinction is made by John in terms of theos, not Father, Son and these personal
terms. The text is very clear, the Word was with the God, the Word was God or a god. There’s a distinction made by John through the use of the article and that is a big distinction. It’s not meaningless. My point is not that every time you have the word “theos” used without the article or with the article it has to be a god or God, my point is there’s a difference when you’re trying to make a difference. When there’s two two beings, and one of them is ha theos and the other one is theos, that’s significant, and that’s the only time in the entire Bible that’s ever done. The only time. So do you think it’s significant? I personally do.
In John 8:58 the opposing Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming that he had “seen Abraham,” although, as they said, Jesus was “not yet 50 years old.” (John 8:57) Jesus’ response was to tell them about his prehuman existence as a mighty spirit creature in heaven before Abraham was born. You seem to claim that this verse identifies Jesus with God. You also seem to argue that the Greek expression used here, e·goʹ ei·miʹ (rendered “I am” in some Bibles), is an allusion to the Septuagint rendering of Exodus 3:14 and that both verses should be rendered the same way. (John 4:26.)
In this context, however, the action expressed by the Greek verb ei·miʹ started “before Abraham came into existence” and was still in progress. It is therefore properly translated “I have been” rather than “I am,” and a number of ancient and modern translations use wording similar to “I have been.” In fact, at John 14:9, the same form of the Greek verb ei·miʹ is used to render Jesus’ words: “Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me?” Most translations use a similar wording, showing that depending on context there is no valid grammatical objection to rendering ei·miʹ as “have been.” (Other examples of rendering a present tense Greek verb using a present perfect tense verb are found at Luke 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; John 15:27; Acts 15:21; 2 Corinthians 12:19; 1 John 3:8.) Also, Jesus’ reasoning recorded at John 8:54, 55 shows that he was not trying to portray himself as being the same God as his Father.
Here are a few Bibles have renderings of eimi in past tenses:
- The United Bible Societies Hebrew New Testament has ani hayiti “I was” not ani hu “I am.”
- George R. Noyes, Unitarian - The New Testament (Boston, 1871). “Before Abraham was born I was already what I am.” and (in the 1904 edition) “I was.”
- The Twentieth Century New Testament (TCNT) supervised by J. Rendel Harris and Richard Francis Weymouth (Britain, 1900). “I have existed before Abraham was born.”
- James Moffatt, The Bible: A New Translation (New York, 1935). “I am here – and I was before Abraham!”
- J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, An American Translation (1935). “I existed before Abraham was born!”
- The New World Translation (1950, 1984). “before Abraham came to be, I have been.”; (2013) “before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”
- J. A. Kleist S.J. and J. L. Lilly C.M., Roman Catholic - The New Testament (Milwaukee, 1956). “I was before Abraham.”
- William F. Beck, Lutheran - The New Testament in the Language of Today (St. Louis, 1963). “I was in existence before Abraham was ever born.”
- Kenneth N. Taylor, The Living Bible (Wheaton, 1979). “I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!”
- The poet Richard Lattimore, The Four Gospels and the Revelation (New York, 1979). “I existed before Abraham was born.”
- ed. Stanley L. Morris, The Simple English Bible (1981). “I was alive before Abraham was born.”
- C. B. Williams, The New Testament in the Language of the People (Nashville, 1986). “I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.”
Concerning Titus 2:13, some translations reads: “the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (NE, TEV, JB.) However the NWT reads: “the glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior Christ Jesus.”
So which translation agrees with Titus 1:4?
Although the Scriptures also refer to God as being a Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation. Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13, satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.
Catholic Public Domain Version
looking forward to the blessed hope and the advent of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ.
New American Bible
as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,
Mace New Testament
in expectation of that desirable happiness, the glorious appearance of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ,
Pulpit Commentary:
“The whole sentence will then stand thus: Looking for the blessed hope, and for the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, etc. The great God (τοῦ μεγάλου); not elsewhere in the New Testament (except in the T.R. of Revelation 19:17), but familiar to us from Psalm 95:3, “The Lord is a great God,” and elsewhere, KS Deuteronomy 10:17; Deuteronomy 7:21; Psalm 77:14, etc.”
Paul describes the Father as the one God in 1 Corinthians 8:6, where he writes,
“Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live.”
In this verse, Paul has described two persons: the Father and His Son Jesus. But did you notice that Paul wrote it in such a way that Jesus is different from the one God?
Paul used the word God as the description for the Father and the word Lord to identify Jesus. So Paul has clearly stated that the one God for Christians is only the Father.
If Paul wanted to include Jesus in the identity of the one true God, he could have said, “Yet for us there is one God, the Father and the Son.” Rather, Paul deliberately designated the Father as God and Jesus as Lord.
I advise all Christians to base their theology on the Word of God alone under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and believe that the Father alone is the one true God, because that’s what our Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles taught.
I leave you now with the following words of the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:20, as translated in the classic edition of the Amplified Bible: “God is only one person.”
Thanks for reading, and God bless you in the name of Jesus.
But He is, though. To understand what Jesus meant, we have to look at the transition from the Hebrew of the Old Testament to the Greek of the New Testament.
The language used in Exodus 3:14 was written in Biblical Hebrew. When God speaks to Moses from the burning bush, He identifies Himself as:
’Ehyeh ’ăšer ’ehyeh
This is often translated as “I AM WHO I AM” or “I Will Be What I Will Be.” It comes from the Hebrew root hayah, meaning “to be” or “to exist.”
In John 8:58, the Gospel of John was written in Koine Greek. In this verse, Jesus says:
“Amen, amen, lego hymin, prin Abraam genesthai, ego eimi.”
(Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.)
While the written Gospel is Greek, scholars debate whether Jesus spoke these specific words in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew. However, the Greek phrase ego eimi is a direct echo of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), which used those exact words to translate God’s name in Exodus.
When Jesus uttered these words, He wasn’t just making a claim about His age; He was making a claim about His nature. Here is the breakdown of the meaning
By saying “Before Abraham was I am,” Jesus used a present tense verb (eimi) to contrast with a past tense verb (genesthai). He was claiming to exist outside of linear time.
By using the phrase “I Am,” Jesus was intentionally identifying Himself with the God of Israel who spoke to Moses. He was claiming the “Tetragrammaton” (YHWH), the sacred name of God.
The strongest evidence for what Jesus meant is found in the reaction of His audience. John 8:59 tells us that the listeners immediately picked up stones to kill Him. Under Jewish law, the penalty for claiming to be God (blasphemy) was stoning. They understood exactly what He was saying: He was claiming to be Yahweh.
Peter
The way that the above verse is supposed to be translated has been argued for many decades with no one coming off the clear victor.
You say that Jesus was alluding to God’s words at Exodus 3:14-15 where JEHOVAH calls Himself, “I AM.” However, I have shown the evidence that suggests that translating the last two words of the sentence, “I am” at John 8:58 word-for-word from the Greek “ego eimi” literally is not proper.
When translating from one language to another, if a phrase is translated word-for-word, it will not always make sense. For example, if I said, “el casa de blanco” in Spanish and translated it word-for-word, “the house of white”, it would make very little sense. If I translated it properly, though, “the white house” it would make sense.
Likewise, although Jesus said, “ego eimi”, it should not be translated so literally because it makes no sense. Jesus was not trying to equate himself with God, he was only talking about being alive before Abraham.
First of all, from the context:
“Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
“You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”-John 8:54-59
Now why, you ask, would the Jews get so worked up over Jesus’ claim of being older then Abraham?
The answer is found in the Jewish view of Abraham. Abraham was so important to them that he was the equivalent of Christ for us. Abraham was so important to the Jews because they claimed that being children of Abraham was a special title reserved for them. For Jesus to claim that he was older then Abraham was sacrilegious to the Jews.
When someone is older, they have more power and authority. In short, they are better then a younger person. To any Jew, Abraham would have been better then Jesus mainly because Abraham was older. For Jesus to say that he was alive before Abraham was alive would mean that Jesus was better then Abraham.
Proof of this thought process, older being synonymous with greater, is found in another account in the Bible.
"John answered them, saying: ‘I baptize in water. In the midst of you one is standing whom you do not know, the one coming behind me, but the lace of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.’ These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
“The next day he beheld Jesus coming toward him, and he said: ‘See, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world! This is the one about whom I said, Behind me there comes a man who has advanced in front of me, because he existed before me. Even I did not know him, but the reason why I came baptizing in water was that he might be made manifest to Israel.’”-John 1:26-31
John would have been considered greater then Jesus because John was born about six months before Jesus. But since Jesus was alive in heaven before his birth then Jesus was better then John, or “advanced in front of [him].” Since the Jews did not accept the pre-human existence of Jesus Christ, these words would be weird to them but they wouldn’t throw them into a blind fury like it did with Christ’s statement about Abraham.
Many scholars also agree with this, that Jesus was simply saying that he existed before Abraham. Look at some of the ways different Bible’s translate John 8:58 in my post above.
But let’s suppose that you are right, that in John 8:58, that when Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, ego eimi,” which is Greek for “I am” it is a coded reference to the divine name (that only works in Greek).
Now, I don’t believe that that is the case, but even if it was, it still wouldn’t mean that Jesus is Almighty God:
The ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, uses ego eimi to render two different divine pieces of self-identification.
• First, the phrase ani hu (“I am he”) that God uses in Deuteronomy and Isaiah.
• Then we have the phrase Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh in Exodus 3:14, which is rendered in the Septuagint as ego eimi ho ōn (“I am the one who is”).
So ego eimi would not the divine name, but a coded reference to the divine name.
And Jesus’s appeal to that coded reference to the divine name is not an identification as God. It is an identification as the possessor of the divine name. Because we can go to John 17, and we see Jesus talking about having manifested God’s name, which God gave to Jesus.
And there are a couple of different places where the divine name is mentioned as the means of Jesus accomplishing certain parts of his mission. And we have, in the Hebrew Bible already, a divine mediator who is able to do what only God is supposed to be able to do, precisely because the divine name is in him. And that’s the messenger of the Lord, as we see in Exodus 23:20–22.
So we don’t even have to go outside the Hebrew Bible to understand what’s going on with Jesus invoking the divine name.
What it means is: I possess the divine name. I’m the authorized bearer of the divine name. Therefore, I act on God’s behalf.
It’s not identifying Jesus as the Almighty God, because Jesus is not the Almighty God in the Gospel of John.
Ok. We can just leave it at that. You are not correct. I have spelled it out in three languages, and you reject them all because your corrupted version of the Bible tells you something different.
God bless. Go in peace.
Peter
The New World Translation is based on up-to-date scholarly research and the most reliable ancient manuscripts. In contrast, the King James Version of 1611 for example was based on manuscripts that were often less accurate and not as old as those used in producing the New World Translation.