Introducing a new blog dedicated to the New World Translation Bible, a Bible version that is unfairly criticized. Simply visit https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/ and right now it features the following articles:
John 1:3, 4, Punctuation, Staircase Parallelism and Caris
We can see from the above that the closer one gets to Trinitarian controversy surrounding Nicaea, the more the punctuation changes in favor of showing Jesus as creator.
The Three Heavenly Witnesses, article in The Liberal Christian
This passage is admitted by learned Trinitarians lo be an interpolation, and they decline making use of it in support of their hypothesis.
http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-three-heavenly-witnesses-article-in.html
Joseph Priestley on the Trinity 1782
The doctrine of Transubstantiation implies a physical impossibility, whereas that of the Trinity, as unfolded in the Athanasian Creed, implies a mathematical one; and to this only we usually give the name of contradiction
The Trinity Doctrine Contradicts Human Reason, By William S Andrews 1829
The strongest argument against the doctrine of the trinity is, that it contradicts the plainest dictates of human reason, and involves in itself propositions which are directly and utterly opposed to each other. One of these propositions is, that God is a single, independent, and almighty being,—the other is, that he is composed of three distinct persons or agents, united together in some mysterious manner, having but one will and consciousness, and together constituting the divine essence.
Answering James L. Melton's Criticisms on the New World Translation
Did you know that the early church fathers did not make any connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58? The Greek versions they used were akin to Aquila’s and Theodotion’s where it reads “esomai hos esomia.” When translated, this reads “I will be what who I will be.” This is just like the TRUE reading at Exodus 3:14.
The Maxim that Proves the Trinity Doctrine as False, by Theophilus Lindsey 1790
It may be assumed as a maxim, which cannot be controverted; that a doctrine of such importance as that which relates to the Being that made us, and whom we are to worship, whether it be one person, one intelligent agent, or consisting of two or three such persons; cannot depend upon one or two particular passages of scripture, especially such as are doubtful and obscure; but must be what is apparent throughout the whole, wherever the name of God occurs, and be every where plain and intelligible to the ordinary plowman, who makes use of his understanding, as to the greatest scholar.
Questions on John 1:1 and John 20:28
This brings us to Smart's Rule as discussed on B-Greek. The rule is stated as: "In native [not translation] KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two substantives of personal description in regimen [i.e. both or neither have articles] and the first substantive alone is modified by the personal pronoun in the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer 147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in view."
The ISV Bible and the Divine Name
In a letter to the ISV in the late 1990's I wrote to ask them about [not including the Divine Name and I got this response:
"In regards to your puerile insistence on the "Divine Name" -- I have news for you. The ISV is in English, not Hebrew. If you want to use the "Divine Name" -- whatever you may think that it is (how DO you pronouce JHWH, or is the Divine Name KYRIOS, or is it Lord, lord, LORD, L-rd, L-RD, God, G-d, G-D?) -- go right ahead and spend two million dollars to prepare your own English language base translation of the Bible like we did.
Samuel Fripp on John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14
... in that very interesting passage, (Exod. iii. 14.) where Moses asks by what name he is to describe the GREAT ETERNAL to his countrymen, “God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM.” Thus it is translated in our common version. Luther's is, more correctly, as follows: “I will be what I will “be.” (Ich werde seyn der ich seyn werde.)
EPI/Over, Revelation 5:10 and the New World Translation
"Our best Greek scholars prefer rendering the preposition 'epi,' OVER, and then it will read, 'we shall reign over the earth.'" The Earthen Vessel and Christian Record & Review, Volumes 12-14 (Baptist) 1856
The New World Translation and the word(s) OTHER and FIRSTBORN and ACTIVE FORCE
It is the Bible that calls Jesus "the firstborn of all creation," "the beginning of God's creation," the "only-begotten Son" and links Jesus to the "created" Wisdom of Proverbs (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14; Jn 3:16; Prov 8:22-30 cf. Lu 11:47/1Cor 1:24 RSV).
The Trinity Doctrine Embarrassed with Numerous Difficulties by Alvin Lamson 1828
To say of Christ, that he is divine and human, infinite and finite, omnipotent and weak, is to assert nothing more strange or mysterious, it is contended, than to affirm of man that he is mortal and immortal. But the fallacy of this statement is quite obvious. The expressions in question do not belong to the same class, nor have they any real, but only a seeming resemblance. When we say that man is mortal and immortal, we do not employ terms, which, in the connexion in which they stand, have any opposition or repugnance; they are not, in fact, opposites; they convey no incompatible ideas.
An Appeal to Pious Trinitarians by Henry Grew 1857
Christian brother; can you open your bible and read, God is three; or that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are one God; or any words of equivalent import? Even the interpolation of 1Jo 5:7, does not affirm that the three are one God. What do we read in the Word of the Lord on this important subject? “Hear, O Israel? The LORD our God is ONE LORD.” – De 6:4 . “God is ONE.” – Ga 3:20. “There is but one God, the Father.” – 1Co 8:6.
The New World Translation and Johannes Greber
Also, the 1936 Greber NT was in German. The English translation was not made by him, but by a professional translator, corrected by a committee of American Clergymen and thoroughly revised by a teacher. The German and English versions at John 1:1 do not even agree with each other.
A Reply to Sam Reed on John 1:1 in the New World Translation
In this video at the 5:13 mark Dr Sam Reed singles out 43 words out of an over 1500 word Appendix, 43 words ripped right out context and they use these 43 words to make it sound like the NWT translators are saying that all anarthrous constructions (where there is no definite article) MUST be translated with an "a." However, the KIT and 1950 NWT appendix never says that at all.
Is 1 John 5:7 Evidence of the Trinity? (Video)
The Attack on Hobby Lobby Is Incoherent and Unjust
The Herald of Gospel Liberty (1904) and John 1:1
The passage might better have been rendered thus: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a divine being.
Matthew 25:46 and the word KOLASIN By James T. Haley 1911
We [now] refer to the Greek word kolasin, translated "punishments" in verse 46. This word has not in it the remotest idea of torment. Its primary signifisation is to cut off or prune or lop off, as in the pruning of trees, and a secondary meaning is to restrain.
The Unitarian Response to: I and My Father are One by Winthrop Bailey 1822
If it be said, that these are the translations of known Unitarians; I reply: our common translation is the work of known Trinitarians. If prejudice render the former suspicious; it renders the latter not less so.
"The Word was a God" from a 1695 Tract
The Word was a god, and Origen, by William Allen 1860
...it was not the purpose of John to represent the Word as the infinite, supreme, almighty God. Origen, who wrote in Greek, in the third century, and understood the language better than any modern critic, says, that John's assertion is that, "the logos, or word, was a god," using the word god in its inferior, well-known sense, as is proved by his omission of the article.
Philo and the Logos as the Second God, by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie 1899
Inasmuch as the Logos appears as the representant of God, he may also be called God; but with this distinction: The unbegotten God is called "The God," the Logos is called "God," without the article. The Logos is the "second God," and "the highest angel;" as the Platonic archetypal idea of man, he may be called the divine man.
No comments:
Post a Comment