Mr Bjorklund says at his site: "References to actual Hebrew and Greek words are derived from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Thomas Nelson, c. 1990), the Greek-English New Testament (Christianity Today, c. 1975) and Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (McDonald, unabridged ed., n.d.)" As we will see, he has made little use of the above.

Genesis 1:2

"Spirit of God" changed to "God's active force."

The revision modifies the original noun with a more impersonal form as the JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit.

Response: Since Mr. Bjorklund uses Vine's Expository Dictionary and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance I will too. If you look up SPIRIT(ruah 7307) you will see that it means "breath; air; strength; courage; temper; Spirit." As we can see, spirit often denotes a force of impersonal action or power. In keeping with this other Bibles render Genesis 1:2 as: "a mighty wind swept over the waters." New American Bible; "a divine wind sweeping over the waters." New Jerusalem Bible
"and the power of God was moving over the water." Good News Bible-TEV see also RSV mg and NEB
For more click here.

Exodus 3:14

"I am" changed to "I shall prove to be."

The revision clouds the connection between God's self proclaimed title and Jesus' proclamation of being the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus.

Response: Strong's says of HAYAH(1961) to exist.i.e., be or become, come to pass. Vine's says of Exodus 3:14," this revelation seems to emphasize that the God who made the covenant is the God who kept the covenant. So Ex. 3:14 is more than a statement of identity...it is a declaration of divine control of things.
You will notice also that at Ex. 3:12 the same word is used(hayah) but there it is rendered I WILL BE, but 2 verses later the NIV and NASB use I AM for the same word, and most bibles give I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE  as a variant reading in the margins. Who is miseading who I wonder?
For more click here.

Numbers 1:52

"Under his own standard" changed to "by his [three-tribe] division."

The Hebrew word degal translated as "standard" literally means flag or banner. Since the JWs regard saluting a flag as an act of idolatry, the text has been altered according to their doctrinal bias. (Same revision found in Num. 2:2, 3, 10, 18, 25; 10: 14, 18, 22, 25.)

Response: Yes, Strong's does give flag, standard or banner as a meaning for DEGEL, but like
McClintock and Strong's Cyclopædia says after discussing the Hebrew words used: "Neither of them, however, expresses the idea which 'standard' conveys to our minds, viz. a flag." At Song of Solomon 6:4; 10 a form of DEGEL is used to describe a division of the heavenly armies (constellations), Here, GEORGE ATHAS, Dept of Semitic Studies, University of Sydney says, "This would also fit the context in which DEGEL implies a division of an army. A constellation would certainly make sense if it seen as both something you look up at, and something which is an ordered division of the starry host."
So the Hebrew word used here can also mean "division of an army". And we know that they are divided into 3 tribes by reading Numbers 2:3-8
See also New American Bible

Isaiah 43:10

"Nor will there be one after me" changed to "after me there continued to be none."

The original future tense of the verb indicates that there will never be another being sharing in God's divinity. The altered tense suggests credibility to the JW doctrine of Jesus' becoming a "mighty god" while still being less than Jehovah in nature. (See the John 1: I discussion below for another expression of this JW distortion.)

Response: I think this is reaching a bit on Mr. Bjorklund's part, as both carry the same meaning to me. Smith & Goodspeed has the same word order, in fact many different versions do not read as is stated by Mr. Bjorklund above.

Ecclesiastes 12:7

"The spirit returns" changed to "the spirit itself returns."

The passage indicates the return of a human spirit to God after death. Since the JWs believe in an unconscious state after death, "itself' has been inserted to suggest a more impersonal reference to spirit.

Response: As we have seen above, SPIRIT can also mean "breath or wind". There is no personification here as the NAB, NRSV, Good News Bible-TEV, NEB mg, Tanakh, and CEV all use "breath" here instead of "spirit". See also Ps. 146:4 It should also be noted that SPIRIT in Greek is neuter, while in Hebrew it is feminine.
Feel free to check the KJV at Rom 8:16, 26 for more of the "Spirit itself".

Matthew 2:11

"Bowed down and worshipped him" changed to "did obeisance to it"

The JWs evade recognizing Jesus as worthy of worship as a divine being by altering the form of honor that he receives from men and angels. The Greek word proskuneo literally means "worship." The use of "obeisance" is a NWT adaptation. (Same revision found in Matt. 8:2; 9:18, 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; 15:19; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6.)

Response: The greek word used here, proskuneo, is not the highest form of worship, that is reserved for latreuo(Phil 3:3, Acts 7:42, 24:14). Vine's Expository Reference explains proskuneo as "to make obeisance, do reverence to." It is used of a man(Matt 18:26) and to God and a King at the same time(1 Chronicles 29:20 LXX), to the Dragon in revelations(Rev.13:4), to the Beast(Rev.13:4, 8, 12; 14:9,11), the image of the Beast(Rev 13:15, 14:11), to Demons(Rev. 9:20), and idols(Acts 7:43). See also NEB, Young, Byington, NJB, Goodspeed, Newcome, REB, 20th Cent, Schonfield, Confraternity, Douay and Kleist&Lilly.
For more click here.

Matthew 5:19

"Least in the kingdom of heaven" changed to "least in relation to the kingdom of the heaven."

The passage indicates that a disobedient believer who sins can still find forgiveness and eternal life. The JWs believe heaven is reserved for only 144,000 specially designated servants of God. The revision suggests more separation between these groups through a status hierarchy.

Response: Mr. Bjorklund no doubt feels that "least" here is the same as the one used in Matthew 11:11, but they aren't. The NIV and the NASB uses "least" in both cases, even though 2 different greek words are used here. The NWT differentiates between the 2 scriptures, making it superior in this regard.

Matthew 25:46

"Eternal punishment" changed to "everlasting cutting-off."

The Greek word kolasis translated "punishment" indicates continuous torment, but the NWT revision suggests "termination," as the JWs promote the doctrine of annihilationism regarding condemned souls.

Response: KOLASIS does not indicate continous torment, and any quick look at Strong's and Vine's will tell you that. In fact it comes from the greek word KOLAZO which means to cut off or prune. The Emphatic Diaglott also uses the phrase "cutting off" and it gives the explanation that most versions confuse KOLASIN with BASINOS conveying the meaning of "torment". It goes on further to say that KOLAZOO "which signifies ,1. to cut off, as lopping off branches of trees, to prune, 2. To restrain, to repress.....3, to punish, to chastise. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment." p.106
Interestingly, The New Testament in Modern English, By Ferrar Fenton has "into a long correction." for more click here

Mark 1:4

"Baptism of repentance" changed to "baptism [in symbol] of repentance. "

Nothing in the original Greek text justifies the insertion of "in symbol." The revision undermines the significance of John the Baptist's ministry, the Jewish meaning of baptism and the Christian sacrament of baptism in contrast to the more regimented JW baptism requirements.

Response: John baptized "those repenting for forgiveness of sins. . . . they were baptized by him in the Jordan river, openly confessing their sins." (Mark 1:4, 5) This does not mean that baptism itself washed away sins. As Acts 19:4 shows, according to various modern translations: "John baptized with the baptism of those repenting." "John's baptism was a baptism in token of repentance." (Smith&Goodspeed) "John baptized with a baptism that was an expression of repentance." (Williams NT) John's baptism, then, was a token or symbol of a natural Jew's having repented for sins against the law covenant. Hence John's baptism prepared these repentant persons for the Messiah. So the NWT uses internal evidence to render as it does, and indicates interpolation by means of brackets(interpolation is a common practise in all translations as it is used to complete a thought.)
See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/baptism.htm

Luke 12:8

"Acknowledges me" changed to "confesses union with me."

The addition of "union" suggest something more than what the original Greek actually states and adds further credibility to the NWT distortion presented in John 6:56 below.

Response: W.E. Vine's says of HOMOLOGEO in reference to Luke 12:8 that the nature of the "confession" is determined by the context. The succeeding verses talk of denial as an antithesis to the preceeding verse. At Luke 22:58 it talks of Peter's denial as being part of something...hence, in union with something. That is why the Good News Bible_TEV says of Luke 12:8, "those who declare publicly that they belong to me."
According to Eugene Nida in Bible Translating (p.57), “The Gospels alone contain more than 700 ambiguous readings in which the Greek may be translated one of two ways.”

Luke 23:43

'Today you will be with me" changed to "I tell you today, You will be with me."

Jesus assured the thief on the cross that their spirits would soon enter the spiritual/heavenly realm together. As the JWs reject the belief in the conscious survival of the human spirit after death, their revision suggests that "today" deals with the time of the statement rather than the relocation of their spirits.

Response: The original languages did not have commas, so it is left up to the translator to determine where to put the comma. In the book How To Enjoy The Bible by E. W. Bullinger, it states, "The word 'verily'[truly] points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the importance of what is about to be said. The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered marked the wonderful faith of the dying malefactor; and the Lord referred to this by connecting the word 'to-day' with 'I say.' 'Verily, I say unto to thee this day.' This day, when all seems lost, and there is no hope; this day, when instead of reigning I am about to die. This day, I say to thee, 'Thou shalt be with me in paradise.'
'I say unto thee this day' was the common Hebrew idiom for emphasizing the occasion of making a solemn statement(see Deut. iv. 26, 39, 40; v. 1; vi. 6; vii.11; viii. 1; 11, 19; ix. 3; x. 13; xi. 2, 8, 13, 26, 27, 28, 32; xiii. 18; xv. 5; xix. 9; xxvi. 3, 16, 18; xxvii. 1, 4, 10; xxviii. 1, 13, 14, 15;  xxix. 12; xxx. 2, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19; xxxii. 46). p. 48  5th ed. 1921
 See also Syriac versions of the Bible, along with Rotherham, Concordant Literal NT and The Riverside New Testament. Below is the Vatican Manuscript 1209 (one of the oldest surviving mss) and they have placed the comma similarly to the NWT.

"Word was God" changed to "Word was a god."

The JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the deity of Jesus. The revision asserts that Jesus was someone other than God Himself.

Response: If you look at the greek, the first use of the word THEOS(God) is not the same as the second in this sentence. That is why many different Bibles also do not render the above verse as
the "Word was God".See also:
In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word. (Interlinear Word for Word English
Translation-Emphatic Diaglott)
Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"
Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god
Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine
Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god
New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"
Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine
Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature
Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"
Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos
Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine
Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was
Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was
Madsen, 1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine Being"
Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos]
Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].
Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine
Being/being]
Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word]
Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind]
Pffflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind]
Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word]
Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]
Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word)
Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God]
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"
Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word]
For more click here.

John 1:12

"Believe" changed to "exercise faith."

The orthodox Christian doctrine of spiritual justification and rebirth before God by belief in Jesus is in conflict with the JW doctrine of salvation by works (i.e., obedience to their organization). The revision attempts to describe salvation as a continuous process rather than a radical encounter and transition (Same revision found in John 3:16, 18; 6:29; Rom. 4:3, 10:4, 9, 10.)

Response:Strong's definition of this greek word(PISTEUO 4100) is "to have faith". What is beleiving if it is not "exercising faith?" This is why the NWT is such an excellent complement to any Bible library. The Amplified Bible renders this verse as "believe in-adhere to, trust in and rely on-his name."

John 6:56

"Remains in me" changed to "remains in union with me."

The mystical union between the individual human spirit and the Spirit of Jesus is obscured by restructuring "in" with a compound form. The substitution implies more separation between a Christian and Jesus. (Same revision found in John 14:20; Rom. 8:1, 2, 10; 12:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 1:13*; 2:10, 13, 15, 21, 22; 3:6; Col. 1:14*, 16*, 27; 2:6, 10*, 11, 12*; 3:3; 1 Thes. 4:16; 5:18; 1 John 3:24; 4:4; 5:20. Verses with an asterisk (*) indicate where the revision uses "by means of" or "in relationship to" rather than "in union with.")

Response:Look up 1722 in Strong's and you will see that this word (EN) has upwards of about 40 different meanings. While UNION isn't specifically mentioned it does fit the parameters mentioned(in, above, on, by means of, against, about, altogether etc). The NWT has compounded all these words and come up with UNION which is an improvement since Jesus is not physically IN us. Smith&Goodspeed, REB, Simple English Bible, Moffatt and the NEB use some of the other words included. But isn't the NWT a literal Bible. Yes it is. The King James Version and the New American Standard Bible are also very literal Bibles, but if you look at Philippians 1:30, the KJV(and NASB) interpolates to be before the word me(EN), even though to be is not in the original Greek. The translators have done this to complete the thought  and this is acceptable.
Incidentally, the Good News Bible-Today's English Version also uses the word "union" in conjunction with EN at Ephesians 1:3, 4, 11; 2:6, 10, 13, 15, 22 etc

John 8:58

"I am" changed to "I have been."

Same intent as described in Exodus 3:14 above.

Response: As we have seen above, Exodus 3:14 has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus and it has been misinterpreted to fit an errant theology. But let us look this up in Strong's. Eimi(1510) carries the meaning(according to Strong's) as "I exist", "am", "have been" or "was."
Examples: John 14:9: "Have I been (EIMI) so long with you." NASB
Ac.13:7: "He was (EIMI) with Sergius Paulus."
For more click here.

John 14:17

"Beholds him or knows him" changed to "beholds it or knows it."

The revision ignores the context of the pronoun with the Comforter role in the preceding verse to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.

Response: The greek word used here is AUTOS(Strong's 846) which can also mean IT(John 15:2), ITSELF(John 21:25), THAT , THERE, THEM and SHE. Now let us consider the context. John 14:17 seaks of the Spirit of Truth. Are we to believe that a concept such as Truth has a shadowy personality that will live on after it dies. Of course not. Us we have seen above, the word SPIRIT, according to Strong's and Vine's also means BREATH, WIND, BLOW etc. There is nothing wrong with either rendering. It should also be noted that SPIRIT in Greek is neuter, while in Hebrew it is feminine. English nouns do not have gender, but many translators will add masculine references to the Spirit to add personality.
 

John 17:5

"Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you" changed to "glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you."

The original text reflects the shared deity of God the Father and Jesus before the creation of the world, but the revision suggests different natures as implied by different states of glory.

Response: The greek word used (twice in the greek text) here is PARA(3844) which means "beside, at, or in the vicinity of(see Strong's). See also Byington, 20th Cent NT, Jewish NT, Knox, Wuest, and Beck.

John 17:21

"Are in me" changed to "are in union with me."

The original statement by Jesus indicates his shared deity with the Father. The revision undermines this by suggesting a greater separation between them.

Response: See above. The only reason this is mentioned again is to make this page seem longer.

Acts 2:17

"Pour out my Spirit" changed to "pour out some of my spirit."

The revision evades recognition of the Holy Spirit and His activity at Pentecost by suggesting an impersonal force activated to a more limited degree by God.

Response: How a person can be "poured out" is beyond me, but again, as we have seen above, the original words for SPIRIT, as used in the Bible(RUAH, PSUCHE) can also mean BREATH, WIND etc. Certainly the context here cries out for an impersonal force. Incidentally, the original Greek renders this passage "I will pour out of my spirit on all flesh." In keeping with the original Greek, Byington, New English Bible, Weymouth margin, and the NAB read similarly to the NWT. See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/acts2.17.htm

Acts 2:42

"Breaking of bread" changed to "taking of meals."

The passage demonstrates the frequency of the communion sacrament among the earliest Christians. The revision is an attempt to disguise this practice as the JWs teach that communion is reserved for only the 144,000 special saints. (Same revision found in Acts 20:7.)

Response: It is not an attempt to disguise anything as the literal rendering "breaking of bread" is mentioned in the footnotes and in the KIT Greek Interlinear. The term is merely an ancient way of saying "eating". If the passage truly demonstrates the frequency of the communion sacrament, then why is wine not mentioned? Beck and the Good News Bible-TEV read similarly to the NWT.

Acts 4:12

"Be saved" changed to "get saved." The revision avoids recognizing that an individual commitment to Jesus provides immediate and complete salvation, as the JWs believe in an alternative salvation as prescribed by their organization. (Same revision found in Acts 16:30-31.)

Response: Does anyone know that "their organization" also prints the King James Version, American Standard Version, Emphatic Diaglott and the Bible in Living English along with interlinears. They also distribute other Bible versions. The "organization" even uses the Revised Standard Version rendering "be saved" in their literature, so they are not opposed to this rendering.But let us look at this scripture. If you read the context(which is something I highly recommend for any of these missives), you will notice that the meaning has not changed. In fact, the meaning has not changed for any of the scriptures mentioned on this page. Did you know that the Moffatt Bible, along with Weymouth, Living Bible, NEB, TEV, Schonfield, Byington, NLT, CEV, BBE, Kleist&Lilly, 20th Cent NT also do not read "be saved?" That is because the Greek word used here is SOZO(4982) and it means "to save". So context has alot of bearing how the word is translated. Please read the list of how this word is used in Vine's Expository Dictionary.

Acts 10:36

"Lord of all" changed to "Lord of all [others]."

The revision suggests that even though Jesus is highly honored, he is still one among many of God's created beings. (Similar revisions found in Rom. 8:32; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1: 16-17.)

Response:We are going to start of by looking at some other scriptures where this is
done.
Luke 21:29
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News Bible (TEV)
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American Bible(NAB)
Luke 11:42
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)
"and of every [other] vegetables." NWT
"and all the other herbs." TEV
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version
In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need
to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets?
"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Chrisitian Literature" by F. Blass and
A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".
Interestingly, the KJV has added the word "other" 67 times in places where it is not in the original languages. The Revised Standard Version has done this 100 times, and the NRSV over 30 times in their NT.
See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/acts10.htm

Romans 2:29

"By the Spirit" changed to "by spirit."

Although the definite article 'the" does not literally appear in the Greek, it is implied by the form that (pneuma) appears in. The revision, however, translates pneuma in a more abstract form to evade the reality of the Holy Spirit. (Same revision found in Rom. 15:19; Eph. 2:22; 3:5; Titus 3:5; James 2:26; 2 Peter 1:21.)

Response: Byington, Schonfield, RSV, 20th Cent NT, New Berkeley Version, Emphatic Diaglott, God's Word, Moffatt, Smith&Goodspeed, Lamsa, REB, Phillips, NRSV and many others do not use the article "the" here. Perhaps they are trying to evade the reality of the holy spirit also.

Romans 8:23a

"Have the firstfruits of the Spirit" changed to "have the firstfruits, namely the spirit."

This represents another form of disguising the separate personality of the Holy Spirit as in Rom. 2:29 above. The original text refers to the derivatives of the Spirit, but the revision identifies the spirit as a derivative.

Response: It should be noted right here that few Bibles would add up to Mr Bjorklund's expectations. The translation process is not as cut and dried as he would like to think. Let us look at other Bibles that refer to "the spirit as a derivative."
God's Word, "we have the Spirit as the first of God's gifts."
New English Bible, "to whom the Spirit is given as firstfruits."
New Life NT "We have the Holy Spirit as the first of God's gift to us."
See also Knox, Moffatt, Smith&Goodspeed and REB.
Other Bibles refer to the spirit as a "foretaste to the future" here.

Romans 8:23b

"The redemption of our bodies" changed to "the release from our bodies by ransom."

This revision avoids the suggestion that there is continuity of either body or soul after death. Their teaching that the soul ceases to exist at the death of the body precludes the ownership of, or relationship to, a body that must be redeemed.

Response: I am still waiting for Mr. Bjorklund to use his Vine's Expository Dictionary or Strong's Words. Redemption, in this instance, according to Vine's(Strong's 629) defines APOLUTROSIS as "a releasing, for(i.e., on payment of) a ransom."

Romans 8:28

"All things" changed to "all his works." The revision undermines the sovereignty of God by suggesting that He controls only the things He is directly involved in doing.

Response: Perhaps a lesson in biblical Greek might help Mr. Bjorklund. The word "things" may be implied...but it is not in the actual Greek. See also NJB, Smith&Goodspeed, REB, Byington, NEB, Barclay etc. In fact there are variant readings of this verse, as in the RSV, NRSV and the footnotes that accompany them. Why? A word for word reading of the Greek text has "all (things) works together the God into good." The translator makes what he believes is the best choice, and this verse in Romans is especially difficult since you can pick up 5 different versions and get 5 different renderings. The meaning of the chapter has not changed though, and neither is "all things" that different from "all his works."

Romans 8:29

"Those God foreknew" changed to "those whom he gave his first recognition."

The revision obscures the nature of God's knowledge and power as a first recognition may or may not be foreknowledge.

Response: Again, another weak attempt. The above sentence admits that it "may or may not be foreknowledge" Any example on this page "may or may not be" one thing or another. Many other Bible translations do not use "foreknew" here, and the 20th Century NT and Smith&Goodspeed also use the word FIRST.

Romans 9:5

"Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!" changed to "Christ, [sprang] according to the flesh: God who is over all, [be] blessed forever."

The direction proclamation that Christ is God is obscured by the altered text.

Response: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: "It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, 'Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God."-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), translated from German, Vol. 2, p. 80.
It is amazing to me that people use this as proof of Jesus' Almightyhood since many Bible versions read similarly to the NWT. The following have also watered down any reference to Jesus was God in this verse. RSV, Moffatt, NEB, Goodspeed , TEV, KJV, NASB, NIV ftn, ASV, Young's, NAB etc etc etc. Again, I have the following from the Vatican Ms 1209, and again, it agrees with the NWT:

Romans 10:13

"Lord" changed to "Jehovah."

This revision obscures the fact that the Lord referred to in verse 13 is the same Lord called Jesus in verse 9. Since the JWs reject the deity of Jesus, the revision is made accordingly.

The Greek word, kurios, translated "Lord" has been revised to "Jehovah" over 200 times in the NWT. The JWs insist that this is the only valid title for God, even though Greek-speaking Jews used "Lord" and "God" in place of "Yahweh" (the source of "Jehovah") throughout their Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Bible contains dozens of names for God other than Lord, Yahweh, or Jehovah.

Response: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 512) says: "Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the G[ree]k text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D."
Professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia, U.S.A., stated: "When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations." (Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978, page 14)
    Does the Bible really contain dozens of names for God? Absolutely not. Many people refer to a list of titles that are shared by others. The one name that is most often mentioned in the originals is Jehovah/Yahweh(about 6823 times). Most Bible versions and Translations have removed this name completely and replaced it with a Title(usually LORD or GOD). Mr. Bjorklund would no doubt like it if the NWT did the same.
For more click here, here and here.

Romans 13:1

"Authorities that exist have been established by God" changed to "authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God."

Since the JW regard saluting a flag, military service and similar forms of submission to government as idolatry, they have added words to the text to weaken the proclaimed authority of government.

Response: Fact is, if you look at 20 different translations, you might 20 different readings of this scripture. This phrase comes from the Greek TASSO(5021) which, according to Strong's, means "to arrange in an orderly manner", but it depends on the tense of the verb. It seems, that according to this, the NWT is closer to the meaning than most.
See also Emphatic Diaglott, God's Word, Byington, Jewish N.T., TEV, Rotherham, Beck, The Message, CEV, Amplified etc.
See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/romans13.htm

1 Corinthians 6:19

"Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit" changed to "the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy spirit."

To avoid recognition of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the revision modifies "body" to a more collective form in harmony with the opposing JW doctrine.

Response: In 1Co 6:18 the apostle Paul warns: "Flee from fornication. Every other sin which a man may commit is outside his body, but he that practices fornication is sinning against his own body." Here he refers to misuse of one's fleshly organism. Then in 1Co 6 v. 19, 20 he is reminding them that as a group they occupy a special place in God's purpose. It is not the body of just one member of the congregation/church that is the temple, but he says: "Do you not know that the body of you people is the temple of the holy spirit within you which you have from God?" This use of the expression "body of you people" is in agreement with the statement in 1 Corinthians 10:17: "Because there is one loaf, we, although many, are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf." The use of the word YOU in capital letters denotes that the original Greek uses this word in a plural tense.

1 Corinthians 10:4

"The Rock was Christ" changed to "that rock-mass meant the Christ."

The passage depicts the preincarnate Jesus exhibiting his divine nature by being present many centuries earlier. This revision tries to conceal his eternal nature with a more figurative interpretation of "the Rock."

Response: A quick look at Vine's and Strongs will tell you that the Greek word PETRA means "a mass of rock".  Nuff said.
See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/1corinth10.4.htm

1 Corinthians 12:11

"As he determines" changed to "as it wills."

The NWT finds many ways to disguise the personality of the Holy Spirit. In this case the third person pronoun exercising individual conscience and will is replaced with an impersonal pronoun.

Response: There actually is no gender here. It could also literally be rendered "having willed."

1 Corinthians 14:14-16

"Spirit" changed to "[gift of the] spirit."

Like several other Biblical passages, this one indicates the distinctive presence of the human spirit as distinguished from the mind and body. The JWs evade these distinctions and try to disguise them with related revisions.

Response: If you open an NASB or a KJV to 1 Corinthians 14 you will notice at verses 1 and 12 that the word "gifts" is in italics. Why? Because this word is not in the original Greek. But the translators felt the need to interpolate the word "gift" to complete the thought. This is required. The NWT translators did the same as the 14th chapter of 1 Cor. deals with the "spiritual gifts" [hence: GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT] such as speaking in tongues and prophesying.

1 Corinthians 15:2

"By this gospel you are saved" changed to "through which YOU are also being saved."

Similar to the Acts 16:30 revision above, this one again obscures the completeness of salvation by grace. The JW's salvation exists as an extended process ("being saved") with the outcome being uncertain until final judgment before Jehovah.

Response: One needs only to compare this scripture with the one at Acts 2:47(NIV, NASB) to get a similar reading. That is why the NRSV, Barclay, NAB, Jewish NT, Emphatic Diaglott, 20th Cent NT etc read the same as the NWT.
See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/1cor.15_2.htm

Galatians 6:18

"Your spirit" changed to "the spirit YOU [show]."

Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision above, this one attempts to obscure the reality of the individual human spirit by presenting it more as an attitude of action than an entity.

Response: It might be a stronger argument to complain about those Bibles that don't even mention "spirit" at all in this instance, like the REB,20th Cent. NT, CEV, NLT and the Living Bible. It obviously is not referring to an entity if this is an allowable practice of translation among trinitarian scholars.

Philippians 1:23

"To depart and be with Christ" changed to "the releasing and the being with Christ."

Paul's eagerness indicates that the believer's spirit goes immediately into Christ's presence at death. The revision suggests that death and being with Christ are two separate steps in an extended process, as the JWs believe in soul sleep (i.e., the unconscious state of the human spirit awaiting the resurrection).

Response: Vine's explains ANALUO as "to unloose, undo", and he explains it metaphorically as "...the unyoking of baggage animals". I think the NWT has handled this marvelously.
for more click here

Colossians 1:19

"His fullness" changed to "fullness."

The definite Greek article (to), translated "his," indicates that Jesus shares the Father's divine nature as also shown in Col. 2:9. The revisions evade the truth by concealing the similarity of the two passages.

Response: No! "His fullness" is used in the NIV and a few other paraphrases, but most standard and literal Bibles do not use "His Fullness".

Colossians 2:9

"The fullness of deity" changed to "the fullness of the divine quality."

The Greek theotes, translated "deity," literally means divine essence or divinity. As the JWs reject the divine nature of Jesus, a revision is inserted to suggest that Jesus is limited to only divine-like characteristics.

Response: The NWT nor the JW's reject the divine nature of the son. Even the NWT calls him the "only-begotten god"(John 1:18, see also NASB). Since Mr. Bjorklund himself admits THEOTES can employ varying examples of the word "divine", other Bibles such as the Good News Bible, Schonfield, Lattimore read similarly to the NWT. For more on Col 2:9 click here.

I Timothy 4:1

"The Spirit" changed to "the inspired utterance."

This revision attempts to obscure the reality and activity of the Holy Spirit by representing it as a message instead of an entity. (Similar revisions found in 1 John 4:1, 3, 6 with "expression" being utilized in place of "utterance.")

Response: This is from Edgar Foster(Lenoir/Rhynes College : "I do not mean to be condescending or harsh, but a comment like this could only come from someone who has not studied a foreign language--orwho has not studied it indepth. There are a number of errors made in an assumption like this...you can't simply do word studies and translate a text word
for word. What is more, the expression 'inspired utterance' is within the PNEUMA's range of meaning, as Thayer's clearly show."
See Knox at 1Timothy and 1 John 4 in Williams NT, Smith&Goodspeed, 20 Cent NT, Barclay, for readings similar to the NWT. For more on SPIRIT, click here.

Titus 2:13

"Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" changed to "the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus."

Similar to the Rom. 9:5 revision shown above, a distinct proclamation of Jesus as God is obscured by the altered text. (Similar rewording also found in 2 Peter 1:1.)

Response: Many translations differ as to how this should be rendered. The NAB, Geneva, KJV, Moffatt, ASV and more read similar to the NWT. Other Bibles have the alternative reading in the margin.  Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: "I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle's way of writing."-(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.
See also 2Peter 1:2; 1Timothy 1:1,2; 2:5; 6:13; 2Timothy 1:1,2; 4:1; Titus 1:1; 3:6
For more click here.

Hebrews 1:8

"Your throne, 0 God" changed to "God is your throne."

The revision avoids addressing the Son, Jesus, as God to validate the JWs' rejection of his divine nature.

Response: Again, many Bibles offer the alternative reading in the margin. Why? This is a quote from Psalms 45:6(7) where it is addressed to King Solomon originally. Was King Solomon almighty God? No! But he could be addressed as such, and this is in keeping with Biblical idiom. Moses was referred to as "god". So were the angels(Ps 8:5; 97:7; 103:1), judges(Ps 82) etc. "For the author(of Hebrews), the Son was the first-born, the apostle of God, the reflection of God's glory, and the stamp of his nature (1:3, 6), but he was not God himself." The Anchor Bible with Commentary by G. W. Buchanan. for more click here and here

Hebrews 9:14

"The eternal Spirit" changed to "an everlasting spirit."

Similar to the Rom. 2:29 revision above, the switching of the article before the adjective represents the work of the Holy Spirit in a more indirect/ impersonal manner.

Response: And again, see the other Bible versions that do similarly at Rom. 2:29 above.

Hebrews 12:28

"We are receiving a kingdom" changed to "we are to receive a kingdom."

An orthodox Christian understanding of the Kingdom recognizes it as primarily established through Jesus' victorious death, then further through post-resurrection displays of his power, and perpetually through the addition of new believers into God's family. The JWs teach that Jesus' Kingdom did not begin until his invisible return in 1914. The form of the Greek word for "receiving" (paralambano) implies a current condition, but the revision suggests a future event according to the JW doctrine.

Response: I am to receive a raise...or...I am receiving a raise. There really is no difference. Thankfully this nonsense is just about over.
 

Revelation 3:14

"Ruler of God's creation" changed to "beginning of the creation by God."

The altered prepositions distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created being.

Response: Who changed WHAT here since many older translations have always used "beginning." The Greek word ARCHE can have other meaningS besides "beginning", but when it is followed by the same kind of expression (genitive) as it does in Rev 3:14, it has the meaning of a beginning or the first part of something. Below are some examples from the KJV:
Matt 24:8 All these [are] the beginning of sorrows.
Mark 13:19  from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time
John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galile
Phil 4:15 in the beginning of the gospel
Heb 3:14 if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end
Heb 7:3 having neither beginning of days
2 Peter 3:4 having neither beginning of days
for more on ARCHE click here

The rest of Andy Bjorklund's page deals with more examples of the "spirit". I have provided a few examples of my own:
"Spirit" NASB Romans 8:6
"spiritual" NKJB Romans 8:6

"mystically" NASB Rev. 11:8
"Spiritually" KJV Rev. 11:8
"symbolic" NAB Rev. 11:8
"prophetically" NRSV Rev. 11:8

In John 3:8 PNUEMA is mentioned twice in the same scripture. The first time it is translated "wind", the second time "spirit".

"the spirit of his mouth" KJV, NWT 2 Thess 2:8
"the breath of his mouth" NASB
There are tons more, but I think you get the drift. It is up to the translator to decide what word best fits, and not all translations agree on the point of how to translate SPIRIT, but all the above fall under the guidelines and allowances for the greek word PNEUMA.

Should we always Translate as Literal as the Original language(Hebrew orGreek)? Obviously Mr. Bjorklund and others would say yes. "He[the translator] thinks that as long as he keeps the "same" words he cannot be too far wrong with the meaning. Instead, what he has done is not translation at all- he has put a new, and therefore wrong message in the bible. Whenever this happens, the problem has become very serious indeed." Norman Mundhenk, What Translation are you Using, The Bible Translator, Oct 1974, pp 419,420

For instance, in 1Samuel 24:3 the NWT uses the phrase "ease nature" while the original has "cover his feet". Is this is a mistranslation? After all the New World Translation is supposed to be literal Bible. But other literal Bibles such as the NKJV and the NASB also do not use the words "cover his feet". They use "relieve himself." This follows the original meaning better and it is an improvement.

Back to Main Page