1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
AN INTRICATE, IN-DEPTH EXAMINATION OF THE WATCHTOWER'S TRANSLATIONS OF THIS GOSPEL, March 30, 2011
Robert M. Bowman Jr. (born 1957), is Director of Research at the Institute for Religious Research, and specializes in the study of apologetics. He is also the author of books such as
Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses: Why They Read the Bible the Way They Do,
The Word-Faith Controversy: Understanding the Health and Wealth Gospel,
Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
He writes in the Introduction to this 1989 book, "there is a need for further analysis of the NWT renderings and the arguments used by the Jehovah's Witnesses... One reason why a new critique is necessary is that the JWs continue to cite newer scholarly sources in defense of their interpretation... In this book I have sought to consider fairly and honestly all of the arguments put forth by JWs in their publications in defense of their interpretation..."
Here are some quotations from the book:
"Of course, it might be possible to translate John 10;33 to say that 'you, being a man, are making yourself God.' ... If 'making yourself a God' is correct, his alleged blasphemy consisted in considering himself to be a divine being when he was not (in the Jews' opinion). Either way, this verse cannot substantiate the idea that the word 'theos' was ever used in the New Testament to mean a genuine or real god... other than the God of Israel." (Pg. 58)
"(F)or JWs to translate (John 1:1) 'a god' is in one sense grammatically possible, but only if they are willing to adopt a pagan interpretation of the entire verse." (Pg. 62)
"(T)he Greek text of John 8:58 is not in dispute here... Both the text and a literal rendering can be found in the JWs' own
The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, where 'ego eimi' is translated as 'I am.'" (Pg. 89)
"If (Walter) Martin's accusations (that there is no Greek 'perfect indefinite tense'), it would have been in the JWs' best interest for them to have shown that they DID use 'standard grammatical terminology,' and they they did NOT invent the term 'perfect indefinite.' Instead, the Society simply ignored the criticism, and presented a completely new defense of the rendering." (Pg. 90-91)
"It must be admitted that at least in this argument the Witnesses are not completely without scholarly backing in identifying John 8:58 as an instance of the present of past action still in progress... However, this fact does not at all help to establish their position on the meaning of John 8:58." (Pg. 104)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No