Boargenes,
I will not be part of hijacking this thread just because you have "an axe to grind", regarding the New World Translation and your anguish over the fact that it does not support the "trinity". I will stay on topic concerning the "trinity", and present more of a case against the trinity, allowing the Bible to speak for itself rather than forcing "a square peg in a round hole." I will though give some details concerning the New World Translation. The basis for the Christian Greek Scriptures (commonly called the New Testament) of the New World Translation was the Greek master text, The New Testament in the Original Greek (originally published 1881), by Westcott and Hort. The Greek texts of Nestle, Bover, Merk and others were also considered.
The Masoretic Hebrew text used for the preparation of the English text of the Hebrew Scripture (commonly called the Old Testament) portion of the New World Translation was the Codex Leningrad B 19A (of U.S.S.R.), as presented in R. Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica (BHK), seventh, eighth and ninth editions (1951-55), using an updated work known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), 1977 edition for the footnotes of the 1984 reference Bible.
This translation is presented in modern English, using current speech forms, and does not use archaic English even in the various prayers and addresses to God. Thus, the New World Translation does not use the now-sanctimonious formal pronouns thou, thy, thine, thee and ye, with their corresponding verb inflections. Hence, your saying that the New World Translation was "translated with only a Strong's Concordance and a very limited understanding of the original language" is "way off in left field". Again, you have failed to do your "homework", but have tried to undermine the New World Translation just because it doesn't fit your trinitarian theory.
Almost all trinitarians have "a beef" with the New World Translation, notwithstanding Bruce Metzger. However, of John 3:13 and the words at the end of this scripture in many Bibles "which is in heaven", many ancient Greek manuscripts do not include this phrase, including the respected Sinaitic Manuscript and the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, both of the fourth century.
Thus, the questionable words were rejected by scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort in preparing their master Greek text, upon which the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was based. Similarly, the words are omitted from The Greek New Testament (3rd edition, 1975) by the United Bible Society.
Commenting on this fact, Bruce M. Metzger writes: “The majority of the Committee, impressed by the quality of the external attestation supporting the shorter reading [which omits the phrase], regarded the words [“which is in heaven”] as an interpretative gloss, reflecting later Christological development.” That is to say, the words evidently were added by a copyist at a later time, perhaps after the doctrine of a triune god had been absorbed from non-Christian religions.
The King James Bible, American Standard, Young's Bible, Darby's Bible, Weymouth's New Testament, Webster's Bible, International Standard Version, and The New King James Version, to note just a few, have not removed the spurious addition, but retained it, along with the alteration of "who" into a contraction for "God" at 1 Timothy 3:16, making it appear to say "God was manifest in the flesh" (King James Bible, Darby's Bible, Webster's Bible, Young's Bible, The New King James Bible) instead of "he who was manifested in the flesh", referring to Jesus, not God.
The New Kings James Bible centernote admits that the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and the United Bible Societies third edition reads "who" and not "God." And Why ? Because the Codex Sinaiticus, of about 350 C.E., reads "he" instead of "God". Thus, the New World Translation, which says "He was made manifest in the flesh" is accurate, following the oldest Greek manuscripts.(see the online interlinear Scripture4all ) This also takes out some of the "ground" for trinitarians. For those who want to know what the Bible really teaches, should we not be greatly interested in what is accurate rather than what is popular.
Furthermore, the King James and New King James Bible still retains the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one. (verse 8) And there are three witness bearers on earth" at 1 John 5:7, 8, despite the fact that the Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth Century C.E., Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century C.E., Codex Vaticanus of the fourth century C.E., Latin Vulgate of about 400 C.E., and Philoxenian-Harclean Syriac Version, sixth and seventh cent. C.E., omit these words. The New World Translation does likewise, ensuring accuracy.
A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are “not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself.” A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century.
So which is more accurate, the King James Bible or the New World Translation ? Which can be more trusted ? Why have both the King James and New King James Bibles not removed them despite the overwhelming evidence that these words were added by someone to promote the trinity ? Is this just ? Why have they continued to support this collusion ?
This is an out and out lying addition. Yet, you apparently agree with this. This is no different than finding a federal judge as being corrupt, having put on a front as one for justice, but now is found out as one who secretly took bribes and tampered with the witnesses. And yet, he stays on the bench. Most are not really interested in what is accurate, but what is "orthodox" in order not to "rock the boat". This was also true in Jesus day, for most were content with the "staus quo", just be a good member of the synagogue. That is why the parents of the man born blind were afraid to "ruffle any feathers".(John 9:20-23)
