On Defending the NWT (I)

Recently one of the fairly large group of “JW Internet Apologists” wrote to CRI to complain about my identification of the New World Translation as one of the “ugly” translations of the Bible in my recent articles on Bible translation. I went so far as to identify it as one of the most dangerous anti-Christian pieces of literature around, and I stand by that assessment, for Christianity is a faith based upon divine revelation, so when you purposefully twist that revelation, you are indeed attacking the faith at its root.
   
What I found rather humorous about the letter was that the author, while clearly impressed with the standard arguments used by Witness apologists, did not seem at all aware of the responses that have been provided to them for quite some time. So I thought I would try to work some of these comments into the blog since I have really not had the time to focus upon these areas in quite some time. I have so many topics I want to get to here, but they have to compete with so many other writing projects that I confess to a certain level of frustration.
   
Our JW correspondent begins by asserting that “anyone having even a basic knowledge” of comparative Bible analysis and criticism knows that many Bible versions, various commentaries, and “lexicon readings,” “support the NWT renditions.” Of course, that rather begs the question, for the issue is whether these sources are being read accurately and fairly and whether the context supports the rendering. He then says (before providing any documentation of his position) “I am somewhat surprised that White continues to attack the NWT using old arguments that have already been pulverized.” I like when folks find imaginative ways to use expressive terms like “pulverize.” And that’s a great term, “pulverize.” Very visual. Unfortunately, when you use terms like that, you sorta set the bar pretty high for yourself. I mean, it is one thing to say “I believe I can make a strong case in support of argument X against position M” but something completely different to say, “I can pulverize position M with argument X.” But that is actually a mild portion: he continues immediately with,
(more…)

Continue Reading

A Memorization Suggestion

Given that Jehovah’s Witnesses have heard John 1:1 quoted to them so many times they can, quite literally, respond to it while in a comatose state, I suggest the memorization (yes, memorization–the real thing, not the “can’t I just stick a little page flag thingy in my pocket New Testament” thing) of a passage that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not encounter on a regular basis, Colossians 2:9. Now, of course, memorizing one passage of Scripture will not prepare you to do battle with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’m talking about those “fast” opportunities that you may have on a train or a bus or in an airport where you want to have a passage at the ready. Colossians 2:9 is not one the JW’s hear with regularity. Of course, you don’t just want to quote a verse. Here’s a possible scenario.

JW: Yes, I talk to many who believe in the Trinity, but I have never seen any sound defense of the belief from the Bible.

(more…)

Continue Reading
Close Menu