Aineo wrote:JW's take the Arian position on the preexistence of the Lord, which disagrees with both the Trinitarian and unitarian position. As to John 1:1, most JW's will concede under pressure their rendering of this verse is not totally accurate, however they appeal to scholars to insist that the last clause is better translated "the word was divine" to show that the preexistent Lord is not God. The JW's (like the ECF's) lack any understanding of the Hebrew foundation of Christianity and also like the ECF's ignore the Hebraic roots of Christianity when translating John 1:1-18.
Based on the NWT alone their position on the 144,000 is untenable. The NWT's literal rendering of the Hebrew "Sheol" and the Greek "Gehenna", "Hades", and "Tartarus" agrees with those who teach the dead sleep and are not resurrected either spiritually or physically until the Lord's return. Translating these 4 words as "hell" is based on Greek philosophy as well as the traditional teaching (also based in Greek philosophy) that upon death all saved people go to heaven. I agree with the JW's position on this. There is no Biblical evidence for the traditional teaching that the saved go to heaven when they die, and a mass of evidence that the soul is not immortal.
Yes, their position on the 144,000 does seem a bit strange. On the one hand insisting that 144,000 is a number to be taken literally (maybe it is, maybe it isn't), but on the other hand insisting that the 12x12,000 from the tribes of Israel is to be taken as a metaphor along with their virgin status.
What is ECF by the way?
True, scripture is pretty clear that the wages of sin is death, and that the death know and experience nothing. And I think it's pretty strange that a lot of people pass over the fact that there will be people in paradise
on earth.
Do you think there is such a thing as an 'ideal' translation of the Bible in English? And of the NWT, what short-comings (if any) do you see other than the apparently confused rendering of John 1:1?