http://jehovah.to/xlation/other.html (Watchtower Writer in black, DYD in blue)

Does the New World Translation Add Words to Colossians 1:17, 18? Revised july 2008 to verses 16 and 17

REVISION NOTES:  Defending Your Doorstep Ministries was contacted in July 2008 by a person named "John" who claimed to be the author of this article.  John objected to the tone of this response and sought clarity on some of our critiques.  Accordingly, he has changed his references which are now noted by the red highlights. 

It should be noted that I DO ACCEPT JOHN'S CRITIQUE THE TONE OF MY RESPONSE.  I have huge problem with people altering scripture - it angers me.  Anger is not a sin, what one does with anger is to be judged as sinful or not sinful.  Furthermore, I believe people who attempt to justify such abominations should stand up and be counted - not "snipe" anonymously from the bushes.  I am happy to stand by my critique.

******************

OK friends, besides the sloppy scholarship of the Watchtower Writer (heretofore referred to as "WW" for brevity sake) the issue is this...

The KJV (which the Watchtower STILL PUBLISHES) translates a verse referring to Jesus, Colossians 1:17-18,  this way...

The obvious problem for the Watchtower was that this calls Jesus the Creator of ALL THINGS, thereby making Him God - because we learn throughout scripture that God created all things.  By the transitive property we all learned in 9th grade, if A = B and B = C, then A=C.  If Jesus Created all things and all things were created by God, then Jesus is God.

Facing this problem the Watchtower shows us the difference between true Biblically-based organizations and cults.  Do they change their doctrine?  CERTAINLY NOT!  THEY CHANGE SCRIPTURE!  In the New World Translation they add the word "other" as such...

(NWT) Colossians 1:16-17 ¹⁶Because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or or governments or authorities.  All [other] things have been created through him and for him.  ¹⁷Also he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist.

The Watchtower hopes this will take away the obvious conclusion made by the verse - that Jesus is God.

The problem is, no words translatable to "other" are found in A SINGLE GREEK TEXT, MINISCULE, PARTIAL, ANCIENT WRITING THAT CITES THE VERSE, OR ANY OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCE DOCUMENTATION.  Only the Watchtower decided to add this to the English some 1900+ years after the fact.  See some organizations are Biblically-based, while other have Bibles that are organizationally-based.

OK, now let's get to the fun, shall we?  Let's watch the various methods the WW uses to try to smoke-and-mirrors "other" into the text.  What we are going to want to watch for are logical fallacies - those are arguments that violate logic to draw their conclusions.  We'll highlight them as they appear so you can see how they are used. Here are a few to look for:

• Red Herring fallacy:  This occurs when someone tries to divert our attention from the argument by introducing some other argument that is not related (or partially-related) to the topic. 
• False Analogy:  This occurs when someone compares two things that are not actually comparable when all the facts are known.
• Poisoning the Well:  This occurs when someone points to the circumstances, emotions, or any other aspect of the argument instead of the argument itself in order to begin to color the audience's view of the argument.
• Appeal to Authority:  Presenting beliefs of another as an authority without laying out why the person should be considered an authority.
• Argument from Silence:  Presenting an argument and claiming that since it is not specifically refuted by a standard then it must be true.  For example, one could argue that it is the Bible does not specifically say it is wrong to hijack a plane, then it must be permissible.
• Circular Reasoning:  An argument where the premise assumes the truthfulness of the conclusion it tries to prove. 
• Composition Fallacy:  What is true of part is true of the whole.

NOTE:  To see the Watchtower writer's footnotes, you must click the link and read the article on his site.

Does the New World Translation Add Words to Colossians 1:17, 18? (Yes to 17, no to 18)

Do not add anything or take anything away!  (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Revelation 22:18, 19)  Right off the bat we see we're going to have some additional "scholarly difficulties"- The verses in Deuteronomy refer to God's commands and the Revelation citation refers specifically to the book of Revelation.  The WW wants to tie it into all of scripture which was not identified until much later than the times of the writings-therefore not necessarily intended for all of scripture. Anyone who undertakes to translate God's Word into another language must see this as a particularly sobering warning.  So it is important to consider the common accusation made against the New World Translation that it has added words to Colossians 1:16-20.

Typical of such accusations is that made by the late Ray Stedman:

 "If you look carefully at the Jehovah's Witnesses' little green translation of the Scriptures, you will notice that in order to substantiate their lie about Jesus Christ, they've inserted the word "other" in these phrases. "All other things were created by him. In him all other things were created." But there is absolutely no warrant whatsoever in the Greek text for the insertion of the word "other." This is a clear instance of the kind of deceitfulness to which these people will stoop in order to propagate their lies."[1] (Emphasis added)

Leaving aside the emotive language used by Stedman (Poisoning the Well: Who gets to decide what is "emotive" about Stedman's language - and SO WHAT if it is?  The issue is the truthfulness of his argument, not his emotions regarding the argument.) and his failure to allow even for the possibility that the NWT translators might be sincere in their efforts, the substance of this allegation must be investigated.  If you really wanted us to "leave (these things) aside", you shouldn't have mentioned them!  Has the word 'other' been inserted arbitrarily, without foundation?

Understanding How Translations are Made

Translation involves rendering the words and thoughts of a writer in one language (generally referred to as the Source Language) into another (called the Target Language).  The process of translating anything involves much more than simply substituting a word in the source language for a corresponding word in the target language. 

As one textbook used for training translators states:

"Elements of meaning which are represented by several orthographic words in one language, say English, may be represented by one orthographic word in another, and vice versa.  ... There is no one-to-one correspondence between orthographic words and elements of meaning within or across languages." (Italics added)[2]

Frequently, then translators are obliged to use more than one word in English to give a complete picture of what is being said in the Greek text of the Bible.  This happens constantly.  For instance, Colossians 1 in the original Greek has 551 words, whereas the King James Version has 656 words, the New International Version has 673, the New World Translation has 766 and the Good News Bible (Today's English Version) has 797.  There is nothing unusual or sinister about this.  Often, the extra words are needed to complete the sense in English.

What we have to ask ourselves, then, is not whether there is a particular word in Colossians 1:16 that means 'other' but whether the idea of 'other' is found in the meaning of the complete sentence.

Does Koine Greek Always Require the Use of a Word for "Other"?

The koine Greek of the New Testament has a number of words that may be translated as 'other'.  These include among a number of others αλλος (allos), ετερος (heteros), λοιπος (loipos).  Frequently, however, the concept of 'other' is not stated expressly, it is simply implied. 

Instructive in this regard is the comment made by noted scholars Blass, Debrunner and Funk, in their Grammar:

"Further ellipses: (1) The omission of the notion 'other, whatever' (§ 306 (5)) is specifically Greek." [3]  Right!  But this is not a reference to this particular verse!

In other words, Greek sometimes takes it for granted that the word 'other' is implied.  This phenomenon is not unique to Greek; it is sometimes encountered in English, which may occasionally omit the word 'other' when there is little chance of misunderstanding.  But an examination of the New Testament indicates that this type of structure is encountered with much greater frequency in koine Greek.

Consider, for example, the following phrases from the book of Acts.  The original Greek is followed by the King James Version rendering in red and the New International Version in blue.

{ FALSE ANALOGY: The above references are not analogous to the Colossians 1 verse since the meaning of the verses does not change with the deletion or inclusion of the word "other".  The Colossians verse does.}

The omission of the notion 'other' is specifically Greek   Greek Grammar, Blass, Debrunner Funk

It is evident that in the above cases other is not expressed in Greek - but it is implied.  The Greek expression translated literally as "Peter and the apostles" does not imply that Peter was not an apostle.  Likewise, Caiaphas was the High Priest, and Paul and Silas were prisoners.  The New International Version has correctly supplied the word 'other', which is implicit in the above sentences, although it is not possible to point to a particular word in the above sentences that is translated other.  The King James Version has done likewise in Acts 5:29, but not in the other two instances, leaving it to the intelligence of the reader to understand this. Right!  But here is the difference the WW fails to mention - if you take "other" out of any of those verses it DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING! 

Use of pas to mean 'all other'

The omission of words that express the notion 'other' is particularly common with the Greek word pas (all).   This may be seen by comparing verses in the New International Version  where a form of the Greek word pas is translated by 'all other(s)' or some similar phrase.  In the following table, none of the verses cited use any of the Greek words traditionally translated 'other'.  The word is merely implied by the context.

 { FALSE ANALOGY: The above references are not analogous to the Colossians 1 verse since the meaning of the verses does not change with the deletion or inclusion of the word "other".  The Colossians verse does.}

In all of the above occurrences, the New International Version has used words such as 'other' or 'else' to complete the sense in English.[4]  This does not mean that they are adding to God's word, they are simply making explicit or clear what was already there in the Greek text.  Thus, it is by no means wrong to translate pas as 'all other,' where that is what is implied by the context.  Right!  But here is the difference the WW fails to mention - if you take "other" out of any of those verses it DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING! 

A Greek Lesson from the Apostle Paul

The writings of the Apostle Paul himself, who wrote the letter to the Colossians, teach us that pas can have the meaning of 'all other things'.  Consider what he writes in 1 Corinthians 15:28:

Thus, Paul himself says that it is δηλον, delon, 'manifest, clear, evident' that the word pas can have exceptions.  In this case, when Scripture says that "all things" (ta panta) are subjected to Christ, Paul points out that the expression 'all things' has an exception - it does not include God himself.  For Paul, this is obvious, as it should be to modern-day readers of the Bible (No - if it was obvious, Paul would not have needed to add a qualifier to exclude God from the verse!).    None of the above-mentioned translations use the word 'other', doubtless reasoning that it is so obvious as to be superfluous.  WHOA! The WW has just inadvertently proved our point!  Paul takes the time to spell out when he wants the translation to not include God - Paul, in other words, is very careful in his writing not to mislead.  We can assume that he was also very careful in Colossians 1 when he DOES NOT ADD ANY QUALIFIER!  We can assume specifically that he meant Jesus created "all things" - just like he wrote it!

That the word 'other' is often implicit in the Greek text is admitted even by Robert Bowman, who is a critic of the New World Translation.  He acknowledges:

It is, of course, legitimate for translators to add the word "other" where this does not change the meaning but simply makes for smoother English (e.g., Luke 11:41-42; 13:2,4).

However, Bowman then adds:

In Colossians 1:16-20, however, adding "other" substantially changes the meaning.[6] BINGO!!!!!!

In view of Bowman's comment, we must ask whether the inclusion of the word 'other' changes the meaning of the original Greek text.  Rolf Furuli explains why this is not the case:

In NWT the use of "all other" four times in Colossians 1 cannot be viewed as bias, and it is not interpolation, since the very words of 1:15 reveal that Jesus Christ is a part of creation, which then implies the word "other" in these four places.[7]   {APPEAL TO AUTHORITY} Who the heck is Rolf Furuli?  What makes HIS qualifications any better than the THOUSANDS of translators since translation of the original languages began that have NOT placed "other" in text?

In view of the statement in verse 15 that Christ is the "firstborn of all Creation", the New World Translation has a very strong case indeed for its translation.

Of course, it is true that some would render the phrase in Colossians 1:15 as "firstborn over all creation" (New International Version; emphasis added) or even to paraphrase it - incorrectly - as "firstborn son, superior to all created things" (Good News Translation).  This is referred to by some as the "genitive of subordination".[8]  It is true that prototokos can at times figuratively refer to supremacy.  Hey!  The truth actually emerges!  However, leaving Colossians 1:15 aside, there is no instance of prototokos being used anywhere in the NT or the LXX with a 'genitive of subordination {Argument from Silence - see points below}' [9]   Furthermore, even if one accepts the extremely dubious conclusion  that Colossians 1:15 has a genitive of subordination, that does still not rule out the possibility of Christ's being a created being.  {Poisoning the Well:  What makes it "dubious"?  YOU CITED THE SOURCE!  YOU APPEALED TO THIS AUTHORITY!  You call it dubious but show no reason why, nor any argument that the Greek translation principle of this being a genitive of subordination DOES NOT APPLY} Indeed, in view of the information cited previously in this article, there is no reason why prototokos pases ktiseos could not be translated as 'firstborn over all other creation'!...and then right back into deceit!!  OH, THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST DISHONEST TRICKS I HAVE EVER SEEN TRIED!  Ok, what you need to understand here is the WW's attempt to "bait-n-switch" you here!  He is trying to dazzle you with Greek terms and citations hoping you draw your own conclusion that his position is right - but here is what he hopes you don't know:

1.  Prototokos (firstborn) is not in the genitive, it's in the nominative.  Ktisos (creation) IS THE GENITIVE.  So his argument is that no one else (or nothing else) but Jesus is called "over creation" using the genitive of subordination!  EXACTLY!!  Jesus (being God) is the ONLY ONE the Bible refers to as being "over creation" (genitive of subordination).

2.  Change this to English to see how ridiculous his argument from silence is: Essentially the WW is saying that since there is no other assertion as something being "over creation" that Jesus could not be "over creation".  In other words, for the WW, everything must be stated twice in the Bible in order to be valid...hey, I wonder where it is stated the Jesus is Michael the Archangel - ONCE - NONETHELESS TWICE!

3.   It is important to understand that the Bible is not the ONLY place Koine Greek is used.  Very often, people who disagree with the Bible try to limit the study be pointing out areas where Greek syntax or word usage appears only once as if that somehow disqualifies it.  The reality is that these principles (like genitive of subordination) are not MADE UP by people translating the Bible - they emerge from the entire language.  So it does not matter whether or not it is found anywhere else in a particular work!

The issue is not the categorization of the genitive - the issue is whether "prototokos" is used anywhere else to indicate someone is not "first from the womb" (actually or theoretically).  Even if the source IS NOT IN THE BIBLE, it is still valid!  Fortunately for us, we have a Biblical example - and of course, the WW does not want you to know about it.  Jeremiah 31:9 Ephriam is called the prototokos even though he not the first from the womb (Genesis 41:51-52).  He is, however, put in a position of supremacy, so prototokos  is used.

See - the point here is that the entire passage placed into it's proper context NECESSITATES that firstborn refers to supremacy!  That is the whole point of the passage!  Read it for yourself:

So is Paul writing to speak of Jesus' SUPREMACY or is writing to tell us Jesus was CREATED?

Jason Beduhn WHO? {Appeal to Authority} makes an further point in his book Truth in Translation:

So what exactly are objectors to "other" arguing for as the meaning of the phrase "all things"?  That Christ created himself (v. 16)? {CIRCULAR REASONING:  Jason assumes Jesus is created in order to prove that he was not created!)  That Christ is before God and that God was made to exist by means of Christ (v. 17)?  {CATEGORY MISTAKE: Jason assumes that Jesus or God need to be created by the other.  The Bible asserts that Jesus IS God and, therefore, always "IS" - He's eternal because God is eternal}  That Christ, too, needs to be reconciled to God (v. 20)?  When we spell out what is denied by the use of "other" we can see clearly how absurd the objection is.[10](Nice authority you appealed to, WW!!!!)

The point is obvious: pas (all) does not always necessarily mean every person, human or spirit, who is living, has ever lived in the past or will ever live in the future.  Common sense must be applied.  But you didn't actually MAKE that point!

Created 'by Christ' - In What Sense?

This brings us to the exact meaning of the phrase used by Paul to say that everything was created.  We can compare the original Greek text with a number of translations.

Concerning Colossians 1:16, Albert Barnes claimed: "There could not possibly be a more explicit declaration that the universe was created by Christ, than this."[11]  But is this truly the case?  If Paul had wanted to say that, he could have said, for example: "αυτος εκτισεν τα παντα."  (autos ektisen ta panta; he created all things)  OR HE COULD HAVE WRITTEN EN AUTO EKTITHE PANTA...which is what he did! Wait - are you really presenting an ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE to prove your point?  You're arguing what Paul DIDN'T write?  You know what else Paul didn't write - the Old Testament, the synoptic Gospels, the Hallelujah Chorus or the Gettysburg Address!  HE WROTE WHAT HE WAS MOVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT TO WRITE - YET YOU AND THE WATCHTOWER ARE TRYING TO ADD TO IT RATHER THAN CHANGE YOUR DOCTRINE.    What he actually did say is something quite different.  No, it's not.

Paul here uses two prepositions with the Greek verb ktizo (κτιζω), create.  He says that all (or all other) things were created en auto (εν αυτω) and di' autou (δι' αυτου).  The preposition en literally means 'in'   No, that's not true either.  Please don't dabble in Greek when you don't know what you are talking about.  As the WW commented above, languages do not have one-to-one word relations.  The meaning of en is actually dependant upon the word case of the word it modifies.  In this case it modifies auto, which is in the dative.  Which the Gingrich lexicon states is "most common prep. in N.T., used with greatest variety of meanings, of which the following are typical, I. Of place: in, on, at, near, in the case of, in the presence of, before, in the judgement of, among, with (denoting accompaniment or association), in the power of, under the influence of, The sense into, In of interrelationship, esp. involving either Jesus or God or both —II. of time—1. of a period of time in the course of, within, meanwhile 2. denoting a point of time when something occurs in, at —3. when, while, during —III. causal—1. expressing means or instrument with, in, by with the help of .—2. kind and manner with power, powerfully, freely, openly —3. cause or reason because of, on account of.

 and the preposition dia (shortened here to di') literally means 'through'.

With regard to the rendering of the expression en auto, the Revised Standard Version and the American Standard Version translate it 'in him.'  The Good News Translation (formerly Today's English Version) renders it 'through him'.[12]  As for the expression di' autou, the same three translations are unanimous in rendering it 'through him.'[13]

The original Greek says that all things were created by means of Christ or through him, not by him as the ultimate agent   Who said this?  The WW?  He puts it in quotes as if he is citing some other authority

When the King James Version was produced in 1611, the word 'by' was frequently used to indicate the means or agent by means of which an action was performed much like it is today!.  Thus, in Matthew 1:22, we have "spoken of the Lord, by the prophet", where we today would say "spoken by the Lord, through (or by means of) the prophet."  Why - "by the prophet" still works.  Or Matthew 12:27, "And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom your children cast them out".  So in the King James Version, it is clear that the word 'by' frequently has the meaning of 'through' or 'by means of'.

In the twenty-first century, however, a reader seeing the word 'by', particularly after a passive verb, is likely to conclude that reference is being made to the ultimate agent of the verb.  To us, a sentence like "The letter was sent by John" is equivalent to saying "John sent the letter".  You would understand, not that John carried the letter on behalf of someone else, but that he himself wrote it and sent it.  In other words, you would think that the letter came from John, not through John (which is perhaps how someone living in the 1600's might have understood it).  This is a significant difference between seventeenth-century English and today's English.

The translators of the NIV clearly recognize this principle, as is seen in their own translation of John 1:17, "the Law was given through Moses".  Here dia is translated as 'through', not 'by'.  Other translations, such as the Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, Good News Translation and the New American Standard Bible likewise use 'through' to translate dia. 

However, turning back to Colossians 1:16, we see that the New International Version has translated both en auto and di' autou as 'by him'.  The problem with this is that modern-day readers are likely to understand 'all things were created by him' as meaning exactly the same as 'he created all things'.  Now this is no doubt what the NIV translators believe, and quite possibly what they want to convey to their readers.  But it is not what the Greek says.  Yes, yes it does.  The Greek says quite clearly through Christ, in Christ or by means of Christ.  Just as the Law was given through Moses, not by Moses, in the sense that Moses was simply an intermediary and not the ultimate source of the Law, in the same way, creation was accomplished through Christ, or by means of him, without his being the ultimate source.  Thus, the Good News Translation correctly renders the first part of Colossians 1:16: "Through him God created everything."  If what you say is true, then there is NO REASON TO ADD "OTHER", is there?  I mean if it doesn't mean Jesus CREATED all things (that he was just some cosmic set of tools that God use to bring everything together) then why the need to add "other" at all????? 

"Other" is implied in "all" and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit. Jason Beduhn, Mr. Circular Reasoning

After a verb in the passive voice, the ultimate source of an action in Greek is generally expressed by υπο (hypo) or occasionally by certain other prepositions without a preposition by the dative case.  In such cases, the word after hypo may truly become the subject of an active verb with exactly the same meaning.  Thus, if Paul had written υπ' αυτου εκτισθη τα παντα (hyp' autou ektisthe ta panta) that would undoubtedly have meant that Christ was the Creator[14].  But that is not what Paul wrote.   What he did write is consistent with the teaching that Christ - the Firstborn of creation - was the one through whom God created everything and everyone else.  More poor scholarship and another argument from silence.  First of all - see that [14] I highlighted in red?  If you go to the source page you'd see this footnote:

[14]Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics states on pages 442ff that, after a verb in the passive voice, the prepositions hypo, apo and para indicate the ultimate source, dia indicates the intermediate agent, and en and ek, as well as the dative case without a preposition, indicate an impersonal means.

***********************

REVISED JULY 2008: As part of the July revision, the WW changed the citation to pages 432ff of Wallace's work.  Now, having the opportunity to actually look up the citation to see what point the WW is trying to make, more flaws surface.  First, Wallace is talking about "Agency", NOT SOURCE!  Wallace illustrates this concept on page 432 by the idea of a child being disciplined by God through his/her parents.  The point of such usage is to illustrate why or on whom's behalf the Actor is acting.  To say that if Paul had written  "υπ' αυτου εκτισθη τα παντα (hyp' autou ektisthe ta panta) that would undoubtedly have meant that Christ was the Creator" is simply untrue.  Had Paul written that he would have been communicating that Jesus was acting on God's behalf.  Even then, we cannot state that for certain, as Wallace points out that such a construction is not an absolute rule (page 332 footnote).

**********************

Anyway, it is another Argument from Silence.  While the principle may be valid - (although not a rule of grammar) IT'S NOT USED HERE!  He's arguing what Paul DIDN'T say - how about we stay with what Paul actually wrote? 

Conclusion

The New World Translation has not 'inserted the word other' into Colossians 1:16ff, as Stedman asserts.  Well, if they didn't put it in there, WHO DID?  It's not in the Greek!  The word 'other' is implied in the preceding word 'all'. That's not a rule of translation!!!!!!!!!!! It is simply not true to say that "there is absolutely no warrant in the Greek text whatsoever for the insertion of the word 'other'".  You're right - the only warrant in doing so is if you have predetermined that Jesus COULD NOT be the Creator regardless of what the Bible has to say.

It could well be argued that the use of the word 'other', while a valid and correct translation, IT'S NEITHER VALID NOR CORRECT IN TRANSLATION!!!!!!!!  YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN IT TO BE EITHER VALID OR CORRECT!! is not actually necessary.  As we have stated above, English, like Greek, sometimes allows the idea of 'other' to be implicit rather than expressed (although nowhere near as frequently as Greek).  Thus, if we say "God created everyone", we don't mean that God created himself  {CATEGORY MISTAKE: That would assume that God is a being that required to be created...no one has every argued that.  The WW uses it here as a Red Herring to throw us off the SCENT OF THE REAL ISSUE - did they or did they not insert a word that is not in the original Greek.  Answer: YES}  This appears to be the position taken by Rolf Furuli, {APPEAL TO AUTHORITY} who feels that, as long as the preceding verse (Colossians 1:15) is translated correctly, "the reader is hardly misled if pas is translated 'all'."[15]

Scholar Jason Beduhn, Hey!  It's Mr. Circular Reasoning/Category Mistake from before!!  Suddenly he has become a "scholar" {APPEAL TO AUTHORITY}! however, sees the use of the word as valuable:

"Other" is implied in "all" and the NW 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 to it show that it is, in fact, necessary, because those who object 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.[16] Thanks, Jay.  We already know you have ruled it out based on circular reasoning and a category mistake fallacy.

It is easy for critics of the New World Translation to criticize certain  renderings without giving the full picture. It's easy to criticize what thousands of scholars throughout history have translated when you use logical fallacies to do it!  And, indeed, it is quite possible for them to persuade an uninformed reader, using the Kingdom Interlinear or a similar work, that the NWT has made an interpolation into the text.  Hey!  THE WATCHTOWER PUBLISHED THE KINGDOM INTERLINEAR AND tells us how to use it:

What we as Bible students should want is what the original Greek text says.  Only by getting this basic meaning can we determine whether the New World Translation or any other Bible translation is right or not.”

The Watchtower

November 16, 1969

 Those critics who profess to know Greek should be aware of the facts presented in this article.  If they do, they are being deceitful when they claim that the NWT adds words.  As for those critics who do not know Greek, it should be obvious that their opinion on the quality of a translation of the New Testament can hardly be trusted.   OK, so we can't trust the Watchtower and the KIT, now right?  Because, by your own admission, they disprove your point.  Why should we trust YOU?

Thus, when Stedman says that "there is absolutely no warrant in the Greek text for the insertion of the word 'other'," what he is saying is simply not true.  The New World Translation has neither added to, nor taken away from, God's inspired word. I suppose that depends on what your definition of the phrase "added to"  is.  Or perhaps what the definition of the word "is" is, right, Mr. President?

______________________________________________________________________

OK, by my count that is 16 logical fallacies pieced together to tell you how the Watchtower did not add the word "other" into a text when the word "other" does not actually appear in the Greek text.  Here is the reality - the Greek word for other (allos) is not in the original Greek.  Not in a single source of hundreds.  The Watchtower added it because it clashed with it's doctrine that Jesus is not God. 

Some organizations are Biblically-based, while other have Bibles that are organizationally-based.

If you would like an in-depth analysis of this and other problems with Jehovah's Witness  doctrine, please click here for our Battling the Watchtower program.

If you have any questions or comments about this article and our response, feel free to comment here: