I’m a Jehovah’s Witness

The end of John 1:1 does not say “the Word was God”; it says “the Word was divine.”

“Theos” is being used qualitatively, as many scholars have recognized. If John wanted to say “the Word was God,” he would have included the definite article, because in Greek predications, if you have a definite noun preceding the verb, that noun takes the article if its referent is either well known or has already been mentioned, and both of those are true of “theos” in John 1:1.

Now, scholars who acknowledge this still like to avoid the rendering “the Word was divine,” because after John was written, that would become a heresy. So they have to retroject conceptual frameworks into the first century that did not exist when John was written—ideas like: God exhausts the category of divinity; therefore, if anybody has divinity, they have to be God. Additionally, this notion that you can have multiple persons within one being allows them to say that’s what “the Word was,” or “the Word was fully God,” or anything to avoid the plain and simple rendering: “the Word was divine.”

Whilst Jesus was being mocked during his execution, the repentant thief next to him said that Jesus had done nothing wrong and asked Jesus to remember him when he comes in his kingdom. What’s particularly of note is what Jesus said in response. He said, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”

Whilst there is little dispute in the wording, there is plenty of dispute in the punctuation. The overwhelming number of translations put the comma after “you” and before “today,” so it reads, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” The implication being that Jesus was saying he would be with the thief in Paradise that very day, and aligns with the popular belief that on death the faithful immediately go to heaven to be with Jesus.

The New World Translation, printed by Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, puts the comma after “today”: “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.” Here, the word “today” is tied to the first clause and gives added emphasis to Jesus’ truthful statement, not meaning that Jesus would later that day be with the thief. However, the newer translation is largely in isolation here, and the argument for the far more popular rendering is due to “Truly I tell you,” being a popular phrase that is used many times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, as can be seen in all of these examples of the comma after “you.”

With this being the case, it would make it seem that the argument for the more common reading—meaning that Jesus would be with the thief later that same day in Paradise—to be the more likely option. In order to resolve this, we will look at the implications of what this means and how it relates to what else the Gospel writers said about Jesus, how historical manuscripts have handled the punctuation, and then a more detailed view of comparable language used throughout the Bible.

There is an obvious problem with the understanding that Jesus would be going to heaven on the same day that he died. The first is mentioned in the next chapter of Luke, chapter 24, verse 46. It says: “And said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ suffer and on the third day rise from the dead.’” Here it is quite clear that Jesus would not rise, or come back to life, until the third day—so not on the same day that he died.

Adding extra weight to this is the Bible being explicit about where Jesus was during those three days. In Acts, referencing one of King David’s Psalms, it says that Jesus would not be left forsaken in the grave. Some Bible translations say “Hades” here; the King James uses the word “hell.” Either way, this is certainly not heaven or any sort of paradise.

Further to confirm this, in the Gospel of John, even after Jesus had been raised back to life, when he was talking to Mary, he told her he hadn’t yet ascended to the Father. Whilst Jehovah’s Witnesses contend that Paradise here is the new earth, critics contend it is heaven and that Jesus was supposed to be there the day that he died along with the thief. This would contradict Jesus’ statement that he hadn’t yet ascended to the Father. Indeed, as the book of Acts confirms, Jesus had been seen after his resurrection for 40 days before ascending to the Father in heaven.

However, is all of this reasoning for nothing if the text is actually saying, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise”? It does need to be noted that the oldest manuscripts had no punctuation, so there wouldn’t have been a comma anywhere. However, punctuation does appear a little later, a fact that is often missed when critics discuss Luke chapter 23, verse 43.

The Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century does include a punctuation point indicating a pause after the Greek word for “today,” thus favoring the rendering used in the New World Translation. In the 5th century, the Curetonian Syriac has an interesting translation of this passage: “Amen, I say to thee today, that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden.” The understanding here is clear, with the additional “that” added after “today,” meaning “today” is not referring to the time that the thief would be in the Garden of Eden, but that it links to the time that Jesus is saying it.

These are just two examples. With this being the case, there are a few translations that do use this less popular rendering. All of this does mean that there is sound manuscript evidence stretching back to the 4th century which provides support for the comma coming after “today.”

However, despite this strong case, we are still left with the language and the over 70 times where the phrase “Truly I tell you,” ends with a comma after “you.” So, is there anything different in Luke 23:43 that sets it apart from the others?

As commentaries point out, the word “today” in Hebrew is used as part of an idiom. As Bullinger says, “I say unto thee this day” was the common Hebrew idiom for emphasizing the occasion of making a solemn statement. That can be seen in the list of examples from the book of Deuteronomy.

This is indeed the case. For instance, Deuteronomy 30:18 says: “I declare to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess.” This was directed toward the Israelites, and they are not being told that they will be perishing on that day, but that they are being told on this very day that they will perish in the future. This is confirmed in the following sentence, showing they won’t live long in the land over the Jordan that they will possess.

Hence, the combination of “I declare to you” and “today” acts as a double emphasis for the upcoming point—that the Israelites should surely perish.

1 Like

To make a further examination, we can refer back to Bullinger’s comments regarding the word “that,” or hoti in Greek, and when it is used in speech. He says that following the verb “to say,” the word “that” specifies the exact words of speech. For example, Luke 4:21: “And he began to say to them, ‘Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.’” The word “today” is used to mean time rather than emphasis, and we can see in the Greek the word “that” separates “today” from the verb “to say.” This is also the case in other instances in Luke.

An exception to this, however, is in Luke 22:34, where Jesus said: “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day until you deny three times that you know me.” As you can see in the Greek, there is no “that” making a separation; however, we can clearly see that the word “today” (sēmeron) is between “rooster” and “crowing,” making it obvious that “today” is referring to the time the rooster crows.

Looking at chapter 23, verse 43, however, there is no word “that” (hoti), and the word “today” (sēmeron) follows the verb “to speak,” making it clear that “today” is linked to the verb “to speak,” acting as an emphasis.

Therefore, the scriptural context, the Hebrew idiom, the manuscript evidence, as well as the writing style of Luke, provide plenty of support for the New World Translation’s “Truly I tell you today” rendering.

The New World Translation, printed by Jehovah’s Witnesses, includes the word “other” five times in Colossians chapter 1. For instance, in verse 16, where, speaking of Jesus, it says: “because by means of him all other things were created.”

Other Bible translations do not include the word “other,” and the New World Translation is accused of bias by adding the word “other” to enforce the meaning that Jesus is a created being, rather than an uncreated creator or part of the Trinity.

To highlight why they think this is a problem, critics will often quote scriptures such as Revelation chapter 22, which warn of grave consequences for anyone adding to or taking away from Scripture.

This post will give a defense and show how it is not only reasonable and justified to include the word “other” in the scriptural text, but also how it is, in fact, free from bias. Please note that whilst this video will touch on the meaning of Jesus being the firstborn of creation, a deeper consideration of this topic and more will be saved for future presentations.

Now, we will focus on defending the inclusion of the word “other” by looking at how translations are made, where and when it is appropriate to add words, and a lesson in translating Greek from the apostle Paul.

As critics point out, the Greek in Colossians chapter 1, verses 16 to 18, does not include the word “other.” Heteros and allos are both used to mean “other” in Greek and are used several times in the Bible. However, it is true that neither heteros nor allos are used in Colossians chapter 1, verses 16 to 18.

So, with this being the case, how can the word “other” be included in the English translation? If you’ve ever learned a new language, you will know that translating between languages involves a lot more than a simple one-for-one word exchange, and Bible translation is no different.

Indeed, this is obvious, as can be seen by looking at word counts of different Bible translations for Colossians chapter 1, which reveal a wide variation, all of which are different from the Greek. This does not mean all these differences are due to biases or that the translators are trying to change the doctrinal meanings of the verses to suit their particular ideologies. However, one thing to note is that the word “other” is added several times in many translations.

For instance, in Acts chapter 5, the apostles had continued their preaching activity despite orders to the contrary, and in giving an explanation, several Bible translations read: “Peter and the other apostles.” The word “other” is not contained in the Greek but is added. The reason being that Peter is an apostle, so if it read “Peter and the apostles,” this sounds like Peter is not an apostle. So, reading “Peter and the other apostles” makes it explicit that we’re talking about all the apostles and that Peter is in that group. Hence, it is clearer to the reader.

Going back to Colossians chapter 1, this contains “all things,” which in the Greek is panta, derived from pas.

Note what is said in Young’s Concordance about “all”: some particles such as “all” are frequently used for “some” or “most.” Backing this up is commentary from Jason BeDuhn, who says that “all” is commonly used in Greek as hyperbole, where “other” is assumed.

A good example of this is in Luke chapter 11. When Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees, he says: “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue, and all other kinds of garden herbs.” Here, “other” has been added and does not appear in the original Greek. However, mint and rue were widely known as being herbs, so similar to the case with Peter and the other apostles, adding “other” makes sense here too, and many translations do add it.

In fact, not only have scholars made this use of “all” apparent, but the apostle Paul does too. In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, it reads: “For he has put everything under his feet.” Here, “everything” is panta, “all things,” from the Greek word pas.

Look how Paul continues. He says: “Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.” So, according to Paul, it’s clear that “all things” or “everything” has an exception. In this instance, God, who is putting everything under Christ, is not included in the “all things” that pertain to Christ.

The second point of note is that God counts as a “thing.” Therefore, if we were to take Colossians chapter 1, verse 16 literally without the word “other,” then if Christ created all things, that would have to mean Christ created himself and his Father, which simply doesn’t make sense. As Jason BeDuhn says, “other” is implied in “all,” and the New World Translation simply makes what is implicit explicit.

You can argue whether it is necessary or not to do this, but I think the objections that have been raised show that it is, in fact, necessary, because those objections want to negate the meaning of the phrase “firstborn of creation.” If adding “other” prevents this misreading of the biblical text, then it is useful to have it there.

The first time this statement was published was in The Golden Age, November 4, 1936, page 72. This article mentions an article in the Brooklyn Union, which I suppose is The Brooklyn Times-Union. I haven’t been able to locate the article in this newspaper. But it also quotes the appendix in The Companion Bible, which seems to be the main source.

There are other sources that agree with this:

  • “The Greek word [stau·rosʹ] properly . . . means merely a stake.”​—Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature.
  • “A pole in the broadest sense. It is not the equivalent of a ‘cross.’”​—Crucifixion in Antiquity.
  • “A strong stake, such as farmers drive into the ground to make their fences or palisades​—no more, no less.”​—History of the Cross.
  • “Stauros: denotes, primarily, “an upright pale or stake.” On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, “to fasten to a stake or pale,” are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed “cross.” The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz.”​—Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
  • “An upright pale or stake . . . It never means two pieces of wood joining each other at any angle.”​—A Critical Lexicon and Concordance.

Contrary to what many people think, this topic is not important for us. I mean, since we do not use the stauros as a religious symbol, it is not important for us what shape it had. It is just a question of accuracy.

The important thing is the fact that Jesus gave his life for us, not the shape of the instrument used to kill him. That’s why we are ready to accept the concept of an upright pale or stake. If new evidence is discovered that the stauros was a cross, or an ex or any other shape, we are ready to accept it.

I already proved this wrong.

So they changed it to fit their beliefs. I already proved that true.

I pointed this out.

Again, it was changed to fit JWs belief system. Does not make it right? As a matter of fact, it makes it wrong.

Since He is God, the thief would indeed be with Him that day. Jesus, the flesh of God, still had to resurrect Himself for scripture’s sake. That does not mean the thief was not with Him. Oh, and then you got the whole outside of time thing, where a Day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is one day. Timey whimey sort of thing.

Yes, again changing the Word for the belief system. Adding a word changes the nature of Jesus being God or a created being. Again, it does not mean it is true just because The New World Translation, printed by Jehovah’s Witnesses, says so.

Thank you for your exstremely detail response. I appreciate that. I feel the evidence is clear, and even in your response, you had to admit it. The JW CHANGED the Word, printed their own bible to better fit their views and belief system.

The problem is, if you attempt to take away Jesus’s true being and deny He is God, it is not a light thing. It will not be handled nicely in the end times. However, since you do not believe that either, I guess it doesn’t matter.
Peter

1 Like

In the original-language text, the two occurrences of “God” (Greek, the·osʹ ) at John 1:1 are grammatically different. In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence. Many scholars note that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant.

For example, The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was *divine.’” (The Translator’s New Testament, page 451)

Other scholars and Bible translations point to this same distinction.

“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”—The Bible—An American Translation, 1935, by J.M.P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

“The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.”—The Bible—Containing the Old and New Testaments, 1950, by James Moffatt.

“The Word was in the beginning, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.”—The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808, edited by Thomas Belsham, based on a New Testament translation by William Newcome.

“In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. So the Word was divine.”—The Authentic New Testament, 1958, by Hugh J. Schonfield.

In Luke 23:43 the form of Greek script used in the earliest available manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures is composed solely of capital letters. It did not contain spaces or punctuation as used in modern languages. Although some scribes did occasionally add some marks in the text that may have been for punctuation, such marks were not used often or consistently. Therefore, the punctuation in modern Bible translations is based on the grammar of the Greek text and the context of the verse.

In this verse, the grammar of the Greek text allows for placing a comma (or a colon) either before or after the word “today.” However, the punctuation shown in renderings of Jesus’ statement depends on how translators understand the sense of what Jesus said and on what the Bible as a whole teaches. Scholarly editions of the Greek text like the ones prepared by Westcott and Hort, Nestle and Aland, and the United Bible Societies put a comma before the Greek word rendered “today.”

However, placing the comma after “today” harmonizes with earlier statements that Jesus made and with teachings found elsewhere in the Scriptures. For example, Jesus said that he would die and be “in the heart of the earth”—the grave—until the third day (Mt 12:40; Mr 10:34). On more than one occasion, he told his disciples that he would be killed and raised on the third day (Lu 9:22; 18:33).

Also, the Bible states that Jesus was resurrected as “the firstfruits of those who had fallen asleep in death” and that he ascended to heaven 40 days later (1Co 15:20; Joh 20:17; Ac 1:1-3, 9; Col 1:18). Jesus was resurrected, not on the day that he died, but on the third day after his death, so it is evident that the criminal could not be with Jesus in Paradise on the same day that Jesus spoke to him.

The New World Translation conveys faithfully the original message that was inspired by God. (2 Timothy 3:​16)

What the Bible says:

  • “My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—[John 14:28]
  • “I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”—[John 20:17]
  • “To us there is but one God, the Father.”—[1 Corinthians 8:6]
  • “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—[1 Peter 1:3]
  • “These things saith the Amen [Jesus], . . . the beginning of the creation of God.”—[Revelation 3:14]
1 Like

Gospel,

What is the JW’s position with regard to the day of the crucifixion?

Ok you are trying really hard, but keep saying the same things that I already disproved. So I will ask you the same question I asked another JW. @Gospel Do you believe Jesus physically rose from the dead? Yes or No?

Gospel,

I have a request for you. Can you please provide a detailed list of the scholars (and their individual qualifcations) who compiled the NWT Translation?

1 Like

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt/appendix-a/jesus-death-and-resurrection/

1 Like

The NWT translators choose to remain anonymous. Such anonymity has been a part of the Watchtower Society for much of its history and in all phases of its publishing activity. The reason has always been to keep from glorifying any man when it is JEHOVAH and Jesus who deserve the recognition. Humility is extremely important to any Christian as the Scriptures clearly teach.

I dont understand why you guys are giving the man a hard time you said he was welcome to be here then he should be welcomed not questioned or people trying to trip him up or trick him into violating the TOS. Now this is getting a little out of hand if you ask me. @Gospel welcome to our forums, if you are not here to lead others away from our christian beliefs, Or anything in that manner then welcome to crosswalks. I hope God has led you here to be saved and to show you the way to his kingdom. Sorry if you felt anyway but welcomed to our community.

2 Likes

­­­­­

1 Like

Thank you my friend

No worries, I am used to it

Show me anywhere I have tried to “trip him up” into a violation?
Be sure to pull up the TOS so you have them handy. What answers could he have given to a question that I have asked could have been a violation. All I’ve done is ask questions, to which he invited.

1 Like

You are welcome, its about respect. When i see that you are welcomed to be here then that means you should be welcomed to our community like any other new member.

1 Like

@PeterC

As an admin, do you see anything in my posts that support what I’m being accused of?

1 Like

I dont even know what a Jehovah’s witness even believes in and dont care to know, ive always only been a christian and believe and always will believe that chistianity is the only truth. And when i see someone believes in something else and has joined a christian site then maybe we have a chance to save another being. And questioning them and beating them up about their beliefs is not the correct way to saving that person. The more you hear about christianity the better chance we have of saving you. You should be asking us questions and we should be giving the answers. I dont want to hear about what a jehovahs witness believes because i know its not what i believe or they would be called chistians. So again welcome to crosswalk i hope you enjoy your time here and learn a lot because the brothers and sister here are really smart, are great people and actually truly care. @Gospel

1 Like

The Bible says that Jesus “was put to death in the flesh but made alive [resurrected] in the spirit.”​—1 Peter 3:​18; Acts 13:34; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 5:​16.

Jesus’ own words showed that he would not be resurrected with his flesh-and-blood body. He said that he would give his “flesh in behalf of the life of the world,” as a ransom for mankind. (John 6:​51; Matthew 20:28) If he had taken back his flesh when he was resurrected, he would have canceled that ransom sacrifice. This could not have happened, though, for the Bible says that he sacrificed his flesh and blood “once for all time.”—Hebrews 9:​11, 12.