Questions 21-30

21. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible,
why does it alter the word of God by twice adding the words “relation to” in
Mt 5:19, when this phrase does not exist in the Greek? See Gr-Engl
Interlinear. How would this verse read if the phrase “relation to” had not
been added to it and what would this say about who can enter the kingdom
of heaven? If only 144,000 people will go to heaven, why does scripture say in
this verse that “ANYONE who does them (the commandments) and teaches
them…” will be called great “in the kingdom of the heavens.”? What does
the word “anyone” mean to you?

To emphasize a previous point: there is no such thing as a word-for-word

translation of the Bible. The Watchtower has never made the claim that
the NWT is such. The obligation of the translator is to impart the intended
meaning of the text to the extent possible. That is what the NWT has
endeavored to do.

In answer to the question, as to how the verse would read without adding
the words in "relation to," it reads in the NIV as follows: "Anyone who
breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others
to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but
whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great
in the kingdom of heaven."

Apparently, the questioner supposes that the expression "in the kingdom
of the heaven" means that the keeper of the commandments receives a
heavenly reward. That, though, is not what Jesus was saying. This is
apparent from the fact that he said that those who break the commands
will be called "least in the kingdom of heaven." Are we to suppose that
those who break God's commands and mislead others to do the same will
still go to heaven, but that they will merely have a lesser place than those
who keep God's laws? According to the mind-twisting illogic of the
questioner, that is the conclusion we would have to draw. After all, it says
that they will be least "in the kingdom of heaven"—so they have to be in
heaven, right?

That would mean that Paul didn't know what he was talking about when
he told the Corinthians that fornicators and adulterers would not inherit the
kingdom. Such convoluted reasoning in itself would appear to justify why
the NWT added "in relation" to clarify that particular text.

22. If the earth will never be destroyed or depopulated, how can it be, then,
that God says in Isa 51:6, "... the earth itself will wear out, and its
inhabitants themselves will die like a mere gnat...", and that John says in
Rev 21:1 that he saw "... a new heaven and a NEW earth; for the former
heaven and the FORMER earth had PASSED AWAY, and the sea is NO
MORE."? Similarly, if the WTS’s teaching that the earth will never be
destroyed or depopulated is correct, then why does the Bible say that “the
earth itself…will perish” (Ps 102:25-26, Heb 1:10-11), and why does Jesus
himself say that “Heaven and EARTH will PASS AWAY…” (Mt 24:35, Mk
13:31, Lk 21:33)? Conversely, in Eccl 1:4, Solomon says, “A generation is
going and a generation is coming; but the earth is standing even to time
indefinite.” But didn’t Solomon write this scripture at a time in his life when
he had ceased to serve the Lord and therefore wrote only his own thoughts
from a very humanistic point of view? In Eccl 1:2, he states, “Everything is
vanity!” and in vs 8 he says, “All things are wearisome”. Since obviously not
“everything” is vanity and not “all things” are wearisome to a true
Christian, doesn’t this show that Solomon was speaking for himself and
doesn’t this whole passage just show the futility of man without God?

The untaught assume that every reference to "earth" is literal. Thinking

people, though, grasp that the Bible uses various kinds of symbolism and
hyperbole.

In context, down in the 15th verse of the 51st chapter of Isaiah, it is

apparent that Jehovah is speaking in terms of a symbolic heavens and
earth. The verse reads: "But I, Jehovah, am your God, the One stirring
up the sea that its waves may be boisterous. Jehovah of armies is
his name. And I shall put my words in your mouth, and with the
shadow of my hand I shall certainly cover you, in order to plant the
heavens and lay the foundation of the earth and say to Zion, 'You are
my people.'

According to the 15th verse, the new heavens and new earth are actually
the people that God blesses. The verse is describing in symbolic terms
how Jehovah is going to reclaim his people from their downtrodden
condition and restore them to his favor. If the new heavens and new earth
are people, it stands to reason that the old heavens and earth that expire
represent the old system of government and society.

As for Solomon's supposedly writing Ecclesiastes after he became an

apostate, that directly contradicts the apostle Paul's inspired statement
that "all Scripture is inspired of God." Solomon was speaking of the
futility of strictly human endeavors. In contrast to vainly striving after the
wind, Solomon concluded his book by saying that the whole obligation of
man was to fear God.

23. The NWT translates the Greek word “Theos” in John 1:1c as “a god”…
(deleted for brevity)

If “Theon” was translated as “God” in Jn 10:33, how would this verse read
and what would it say about the nature of Christ? What did Jesus say in this
passage that made the Jews want to kill him? See Jn 10:30-31. The phrase
“Son of God” in theological language is a Semitic term which means “having
the same nature as God”, or being God, just as the term “Son of man” means
“having the same nature as a man”, or being a man. Since blasphemy is one
of the few offenses in Jewish law for which a person may be stoned to death,
wouldn’t this claim of Christ, that he is the Son of God, qualify as a
blasphemous statement to the Jews, and wasn’t this the reason they wanted
to kill him by stoning him to death (Jn 10:31, 36-39)?

John 1:1 is without doubt the most talked-about verse in the Bible. If the
reader wishes to examine both sides of the argument there are ample
resources on the Internet. Here are a few links. This site has a lot of
information on the John 1:1 controversy. Here is a link to a site with an
extensive reference work to various translations of John 1:1.

As for John 10:33, it is notable that Trinitarians are disposed to reference

the Pharisees and the Christ-hating Jews, as if they spoke the truth. Jesus
had already told them in the 8th chapter that they did not know him or his
Father who sent him, but that they were liars and sons of the Devil. The
truth is the Jews were lying when they said that Jesus made himself God.
He didn't. In context, in the 29th verse Jesus merely said: "What my
Father has given me is greater than all other things, and no one can
snatch them out of the hand of the Father. I and the Father are one."

While Trinitarians are quick to assume that expressions such as "I and the
Father are one," is the same thing as saying 'I am God,' the Scriptures
indicate otherwise. In the 17th chapter of John, for example, Jesus
acknowledged his oneness with God and asked his Father's blessing
upon his disciples that they may be one with them. Certainly no
reasonable person would conclude that Jesus was saying that all
Christians are God or part of some kind of multiple Godhead.

Actually, Jesus did not let the Jews' lie go uncorrected. In the 36th verse
he set them straight by reiterating that he said he was God's Son and that
he was dispatched by his Father.

Yet, according to Trinitarian reasoning, the word "son" is synonymous with

"father." Apparently, then, words have no real meaning, so black is
actually white; up is down; death is life, and so on and so forth.

24. …Jehovah's Witnesses--Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, reference is

made to The Finished Mystery, which was the 7th of the Studies in the
Scriptures series published by the WTS in 1917 (pg 66, 719), and was the
major publication of the WTS at that time. On pgs. 88, 648, and 651, a
picture of this book appears, complete with the winged disk symbol of the
Egyptian sun god Ra on its front cover... (Segment cropped for brevity) …
Do you really think that Jesus would have chosen an organization which
taught so many things that were not correct according to "current" WTS
teachings and are no longer taught as "the Truth"? Since God does not tell
lies or change his mind (Num 23:19, Ps 89:34, Heb 6:18), and it is clear that
the WTS could not have possibly been speaking for God when they taught
these things, at least according to current WTS teachings, how do you know
that the WTS is speaking for God now?

Jesus' original apostles and disciples had all sorts of misconceptions that
were not cleared up until after Jesus was resurrected. That's why at Luke
24:25, Christ said to them: "O senseless ones and slow in heart to
believe on all the things the prophets spoke!" Yet, even though Christ
described his beloved apostles as senseless and slow to believe God's
word, he previously entrusted them with the responsibility to represent him
as they went through the land declaring that the kingdom of God had
drawn near. That is extraordinary when we consider that at that time the
apostles were sent forth they did not even know that the kingdom was
going to be in heaven.

Jehovah's Witnesses are in the same position relative to Christ's arrival,

as were the apostles before Christ death and resurrection. Malachi 3:1-2
foretells that the arrival of God's Messianic messenger will result in a
refining and cleansing of God's servants. It reads: "Look! I am sending
my messenger, and he must clear up a way before me. And suddenly
there will come to His temple the true Lord, whom you people are
seeking, and the messenger of the covenant in whom you are
delighting. Look! He will certainly come," Jehovah of armies has
said. But who will be putting up with the day of his coming, and who
will be the one standing when he appears? For he will be like the fire
of a refiner and like the lye of laundrymen."

If there is a final accounting and cleansing for the true people of God, as
the Scriptures say, then it stands to reason that there are unclean
teachings and attitudes that need to be purged. Therefore the errors of
Jehovah's Witnesses, past and present, do not of themselves disqualify
us from representing God's kingdom, as the apostles were not disqualified
in their unenlightened state. The qualifying factor is our willingness to
allow ourselves to be disciplined and taught by Christ.

25. Isa 42:8 says, “I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I
give my OWN GLORY…” Similarly, Isa 48:11 says, “… And to no one else
shall I give my OWN GLORY.” If Christ is not God, then how could he say
in Jn 17:5, “So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the
GLORY that I HAD ALONGSIDE YOU before the world was”? Since God
stated that no one else would have the glory that alone belonged to God, how
could Christ have the same “glory” as God unless Christ is God in the flesh?

Since Christ clearly stated that he once possessed God's glory and he
asked God to glorify him again, the question should have been: Why does
God say that he will not share his glory with anyone else when in reality
he shares it with Christ? The problem is that the questioner takes isolated
statements and turns them into absolutes.

26. Phil 2:6-8 says that Christ was “existing in GOD’S FORM” before he
became a man, and willingly “emptied (lowered) HIMSELF” to become a
man and “humbled HIMSELF” in order to make himself subject to the
Father. Scripture also says that Christ was born under the law (Gal 4:4), in
order to do, not his own will, but the will of the Father (Jn 5:30, 6:37).
Doesn’t this mean that before Christ lowered “himself”, he would not have
been subject to the Father and therefore equal to the Father in authority and
glory? See also Jn 17:5

No, of course not. When Jesus was on earth he stated that he always did
the things pleasing to his Father. That would mean that he did what was
pleasing to God while he lived in heaven. He also said that he did not
come of his own initiative but that his Father sent him. Obviously, for
Jehovah to send his Son down from heaven to earth, the Son would have
been subject to the Father before he came to earth. The twisted reasoning
of the questioner is merely symptomatic of those who have been willfully
blinded to the truth by the Trinity doctrine.

27. The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" ( ) as "I am" every time
it appears in the New Testament (eg, Jn 6:35, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.),
except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been". If the NWT is the
most accurate word for word translation of the Bible what is the reason for
the inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was translated in Jn 8:58
the same way it is translated in every other verse in which it appears, how
would Jn 8:58 read and what would this verse say about the nature of
Christ? See Exo 3:14 in every version of the Bible except the NWT. Why is
this phrase, “ego eimi” translated as “I am” in the KIT, but “I have been” in
the NWT? Since “I am” is present tense, and “I have been” is past tense,
which tense is correct? If the “translators” of the NWT were Greek scholars,
shouldn’t they have known which tense “ego eimi” is?

If "ego eimi" were translated at John 8:54 in the NWT to read as a title, "I
Am," like most translations render it, then, it too would be guilty of
rendering a grammatically tortured and nonsensical passage. The
question Jehovah's Witnesses pose is: Why have other translations been
inconsistent in translating "ego eimi"? For instance, one of the proof texts
you cited reads in the NIV: "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me
will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be
thirsty."

In that verse "ego eimi" is translated to read as a mere pronoun and verb.
What justification is there, then, for the translator to render that very same
phrase as if it were a title synonymous with the name of Jehovah, as they
have done at John 8:58? Answer: There is no justification, only apparent
bias towards promotion of the unscriptural Trinity doctrine.

If Jesus intended to take the title of "I Am," he would have said something
like, 'Before Abraham lived, I was the I Am.' As it stands, converting the
"am" into a proper noun leaves the sentence without any sort of modifying
verb for the pronoun. That is why John 8:58 in most translations is mere
gibberish, unless you imagine that Jesus suddenly started speaking in
some sort of Ebonics. If the concocted title of "I Am" at John 8:58 is simply
another name of God, then we ought to be able to substitute the word
God or Jehovah and get the same sense. So, read the verse in question
substituting "I Am" with God and what do you get? The NIV would read:
"Before Abraham was born, God."

You don't have to be a Greek scholar to appreciate that the translation of

ego eimi as "I Am" is a hackneyed and clumsy attempt by Trinitarians to
prop up a limp doctrine that cannot stand up on its own. The truth is that
the expression in question can denote a past action, and according to the
context Jesus was asked about his past. The NWT is not the only
translation to realize this. The New Living Translation (NLT) nicely
phrases it, saying: The people said, "You aren't even fifty years old.
How can you say you have seen Abraham?" Jesus answered, "The
truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!"

The Watchtower is clearly justified in translating ego eimi as "I have

been."

28. Almost every time the Greek word “ginosko” (Strong’s # 1097) is used in
the New Testament, the NWT translates it as “know” or “known” (eg, 1Cor
8:3, Gal 4:9, Jn 10:14, Jn 10:27, etc). However, in Jn 17:3, this same Greek
word is rendered as “taking in knowledge of”. What is the reason for the
inconsistency of the translation of this word in Jn 17:3 by the NWT? If the
NWT were consistent and translated this word in Jn 17:3 the same way it is
translated in the other verses in which it appears, how would this verse
read? In addition, the Kingdom Interlinear translates this word as “they
may be KNOWING” instead of “their taking in knowledge” as it is
translated in the NWT. Why the inconsistency in translation between the
KIT and the NWT? If this word was translated in this verse like it is
translated in the other verses in which it appears, how would this verse
read? How could a person come to “know” Jesus Christ unless they have a
relationship with him? How could a person have a relationship with Christ
unless they communicate with Jesus through prayer?

For the benefit of readers who do not have access to older Watchtower
publications, here is a transcript taken straight from the March 1st, 1992,
Watchtower, which discusses this very question. It seems appropriate to
simply allow the Watchtower to speak for itself on this question.

Why, though, does the New World Translation render this verse "taking in
knowledge of. . .? God" instead of "know . . . God," as most
other translations of the Bible express it?—See also the footnote to John
17:3.

The Greek word here translated 'take in knowledge' or "know" is a form

of the verb gi·no´sko. And the rendering in the New World Translation is
designed to bring out as fully as possible the meaning of that word. The basic
meaning of gi·no´sko is to "know," but the Greek word has various shades of
meaning. Note the following definitions:

"GINOSKO (γινώσκω) signifies to be taking in knowledge, to come to

know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely." (Expository
 Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine) Hence, rendering
gi·no´sko 'take in knowledge' is not 'changing the Bible,' as critics of the New
World Translation have alleged. In a discussion of the various shades of
meaning the word can encompass, renowned lexicographer James Hope
Moulton states: "The present simplex, γινώσκειν, is durative, 'to be taking in
knowledge.'"—A Grammar of New Testament Greek.

A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament explains gi·no´sko

as it appears at John 17:3 as "implying a continuous process." A further
comment on this Greek word appears in Word Studies in the New Testament,
by Marvin R. Vincent. This says: "Eternal life consists in knowledge, or
rather the pursuit of knowledge, since the present tense marks a continuance,
a progressive perception." (Italics his.) A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures in
the New Testament suggests translating the word "should keep on knowing."

Therefore, in the original Greek, Jesus' words at John 17:3 imply

continuous effort to get to know the true God and his Son, Jesus Christ, and
this is well brought out in the rendering of the New World Translation. We
acquire this knowledge by diligently studying God's Word and by obediently
conforming our lives to its standards. (Compare Hosea 4:1, 2; 8:2; 2 Timothy
3:16, 17.) What fine reward awaits those who acquaint themselves with
God's personality and with that of his Son and then strive to imitate them?
Everlasting life!

(Copyright © 1992, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society)

29. If the soul is the body, why does Jesus make a distinction between the
body and the soul in Mt 10:28? Similarly, if the soul is the body, why does
Paul make a distinction between the “spirit and soul and body of you” in
1Thess 5:23? In addition, the NWT renders 2Tim 4:22 as, “The Lord [be]
with the spirit you [show]…”even though the Kingdom Interlinear
Translation (KIT) translates the Greek phrase “soul pneuma” as “the spirit
of you”. Why is there a difference between the KIT and the NWT rendition
of this verse? Why does the NWT add the word “[show]” when it does not
appear in the Greek? Wouldn’t the KIT version be a much simpler and
straight forward rendition of this verse? If the KIT version is used, what
does this verse say about the “spirit” of a person?

You are mistaken. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that the body and
soul are the same thing. "Soul" has several different meanings. It is used
in the Bible to refer to the person or the life that a person possesses.
There is more to a person than merely a body. The Watchtower has
published much information to help people understand these elementary
yet fundamental Bible teachings.
30. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible,
why does it alter the word of God by adding the word “[Son]” in Acts 20:28
when this word does not exist in the Greek? See Gr-Engl Interlinear.

The NIV renders this verse as saying: "Be shepherds of the church of
God, which he bought with his own blood."

However, the Contemporary English Version (CEV) agrees with the NWT,
it reads: "Be like shepherds to God's church. It is the flock that he
bought with the blood of his own Son."

Which translation is correct? The NWT and CEV are correct. The original
Greek does not support the so-called "popular" rendering. Neither do the
Scriptures support the idea that God gave his own life as a ransom. The
Bible says in dozens of places that God gave his son, not himself.

The Kingdom Interlinear transliterates the verse in question to say that

God purchased the congregation "through the blood of the own (one)."
That is not to say God's own blood, but the blood of one who belonged to
God—namely his Son's blood. The NWT is fully justified in making that
clear.