A common charge made against the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is that it is the *only* bible to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was a god” due to some sort of anti-trinitarian bias. However, this is incorrect, as other translators, including known trinitarians, have seen something in the Greek grammar and context of the first chapter of John that made them render John 1:1 different from the traditional rendering “and the Word was God”. Here are some examples… Continue reading
A deeper look at John 8:58
Trinitarian critics of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses, often take issue with the verse recorded at John 8:58, which reads…
John 8:58 “Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.””
In translations that they prefer, it has Jesus saying “I AM” instead of “I have been”, and they mistakenly claim that Jesus was claiming to be the God of the Old Testament who says “I am that I am” at Exodus 3:14 according to the same translations (which is also incorrect). The charge is that the New World Translation is unique in that it renders the passage in a way that suits our belief that the trinity doctrine is a false teaching. But is the New World Translation really unique in this regard?
The answer is No. Continue reading
Jesus was hung on a stake, likely without a crossbeam.
So this is really an interesting article that follows, originally published by ABC News. A few months back, a similar article appeared in the Daily Mail, and we had posted about it and discussed it over at JWTalk. The Daily Mail is a news publication in print over in Britain. But this one by ABC News is interesting because it is local to us in the USA, is reputable, and the details of this version are much more interesting.
This article will be of particular interest to Jehovah’s Witnesses, as Christians are known as today. It is widely known that we do not believe that Jesus died on a cross, because the exact wording of the Holy Bible gives strong indication that he did not. Whether he did or did not is a moot point, and a blog entry for another day. And while we certainly do not need secular support for anything we know to be true based on the scriptures, the article below based on the recent comments of one scholar is very interesting indeed. Continue reading