Kingdom Interlinear Translation and the Deception of
doubtless copying out of other books and web pages, parrots
the tired old allegation that the New World Translation
has added words to the Bible. They say:
consider one example here from Colossians 1:16, 17. Notice
the addition of the word "other" four times to alter the
meaning of the text:
Now, go back and read the text without the addition of the
word "other", which has no business being inserted in the
discussion of this allegation is found
here. However, let us just summarize the evidence:
All Bible translations add words in English to
complete the sense.
In Koine Greek, it is often left to the reader's
intelligence to understand when "other" is implied.
The adjective pas, all, in particular,
frequently has the meaning 'all other' or 'every other' in
the New Testament.
Many Biblical passages would be contradictory or
unintelligible if we did
not understand pas to mean 'all
The rendering 'all other' does not in any case
contradict the Trinity doctrine, in as much as Trinitarians
and Jehovah's Witnesses alike agree that God did not create
himself, but rather created all other things.
has another criticism of Colossians 1:16, 17:
At least they put it in brackets here, but when it got to
the separate publication of the New World Translation, the
Is this true? No it is not. The brackets are
there in every edition of the English-language New World
Translation, including the 1984 Reference Bible
edition, the 1986 pocket-sized edition and the Watchtower
See whether or not MacGregor's statement is a lie by
examining this extract of the latest edition of the NWT
(1984) on the left.
the way, check out the footnote. It explains why other
has been added by a comparison with Luke 11:41, 42. If
you look this up, you will see that sometimes the word
'other' must be added after the word 'all' in order to make
sense of a text.)
You can also see the
untruth of MacGregor's assertions by
checking Colossians 1:16, 17 out for yourself at the Watch
Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses often accuse them of changing
their teachings. Yet it is the critics themselves who
have changed their teachings with regard to John 1:1.
Let's take a look at their comments and compare them with
later scholarship. MacGregor states:
The Watchtower "translators" have
reduced Jesus to the status of "a god" in their
mistranslation of John 1:1, and made a big deal out of the
"Ho" (indefinite article)
missing from in front of "theos" when referring to Christ
First, we should point out that 'ho' is not the "indefinite
article" as MacGregor calls it here. In fact, Greek
does not have an indefinite article.
Perhaps this was just a slip. Having cited the
opinion of Bishop Westcott, they continue:
since the definite article "ho" was used once earlier in
the phrase, in Greek grammar it is understood but not
stated again later in the phrase. Dr. Wescott concludes,
with his knowledge of Greek, that the Word (Jesus Christ)
is understood to be "Ho Theos", even in John 1:1.
This opinion was quite common among critics of the New World
Translation just a few short years ago. However, since
then they have changed their tune considerably. Note
what Daniel Wallace - certainly no friend of the NWT
- had to say about the idea that the anarthrous theos
in John 1:1 is definite:
Grammarians and exegetes since Colwell have taken θεός as
However, their basis has usually been a misunderstanding of
Colwell’s rule. ... If we check the rule to see if it
applies here, we would say that the previous mention of
(in 1:1b) is articular. Therefore, if the same person being
referred to there is called θεός in 1:1c, then in both
places it is definite. Although certainly possible
grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative),
the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of
definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are
monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names,
none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a
definite θεός in John 1:1c.
Further, calling θεός in 1:1c definite is the same as saying
that if it had followed the verb it would have had the
article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with
(i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The
problem of this argument is that the
in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the θεός in 1:1c is
the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.”
This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is
So, McGregor Ministries' claim that "the Word (Jesus Christ)
is understood to be
"Ho Theos" has been jettisoned by modern-day grammarians of
the Greek language. In fact, they are becoming more
and more convinced that theos in John 1:1 c is
qualitative, rather than definite. Interestingly,
30 years ago, The Watchtower contained the following
Certain scholars have pointed out that anarthrous predicate
nouns that precede the verb in Greek may have a qualitative
There is certainly a lot more that can be said about the
translation of John 1:1, but the above should be sufficient
to demonstrate that this criticism is unfounded.
1 Peter 3:15 and the Interlinear
In MacGregor's comments on 1 Peter 3:15, we find statements
that are absurd even by their standards. For instance:
Sometimes we have to look beyond the surface reading to the
footnotes to see the depth of deception in the KIT, but the
truth is there for the finding.
So, according to MacGregor, the main text reading of 1 Peter
3:15 is deceptive, and the truth is in the footnote.
It is difficult to believe that MacGregor has thought much
about this statement. Both the interlinear text and
the English column on the right-hand side say that we should
"sanctify the Christ as Lord", the same reading found in the
Revised Standard Version, the New International Version and
just about every other modern version.
It is difficult to see how the KIT is "deceptive" in this
verse when it reads the same as all other modern versions!
κύριον δε τον Χριστόν αγιάσατε εν ταις καρδιαις υμων
NWT Interlinear Reading
Lord but the Christ sanctify-you in the hearts of-you
But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts.
but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.
MacGregor goes on to remark excitedly:
Ahah! a"*" after the word "Lord".
What could they be concealing in the footnote? Let's see:
"Concealing in the footnote"? Another outlandish
assertion. Footnotes in the Bible are not used to
information but rather to add extra information that
is not in the main text. That is exactly what happens
There then follows a facsimile of the footnote found on page
1032 of the 1969 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear
Sanctify Jehovah God, J7, 8, 12-14, 16, 17
The letter J followed by those numbers refers to various
translations of Peter's letter into Hebrew between 1599 and
1877. Thus, the Kingdom Interlinear recognizes
that some later translators have seen a reference to Jehovah
in this verse.
here McGregor gets very excited indeed:
Oh my! The Watchtower translators couldn't very well have
their followers sanctifying Christ as Jehovah could they?
Nor could they entertain the idea that Christ could be in
their individual hearts as Jehovah God. Therefore they
mistranslated, breaking all their own rules, to hide this
There is a serious
problem with MacGregor's suppositions here. The
footnote does not say "Sanctify Christ as Jehovah". It
says "Sanctify Jehovah God". In the Hebrew
translations that refer to Jehovah, Christ is not mentioned.
In any case, Hebrew translations made more than a thousand
years after the Bible was completed are never decisive
evidence, merely interesting information for comparison.
It would be
interesting to know from MacGregor: They say the Watchtower
translators broke their own rules. What rules did they
break? And how are they hiding an important truth when
their rendering is the same as that of all the other Bible
The MacGregor Ministries web page on the Kingdom
Interlinear Translation is a case study in deceit,
prejudice, ignorance and slipshod "scholarship".
It ignores the evidence of well-known and respected
lexicons, preferring to accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of
making up definitions for words.
It fails to recognize that the vast majority of the
renderings of the New World Translation are by no
means unique to Jehovah's Witnesses, but are found in
numerous other translations made by scholars of impeccable
It misquotes Watch Tower literature to back up its
It gives evidence of fundamental misunderstandings of
quite elementary points of Greek and English grammar.
Instead of concentrating on scholarly debate and
constructive criticism, it ridicules and slanders its
It is hopelessly out of date with regard to certain
aspects of the understanding of Greek grammar.
It would be nice to be able to say that MacGregor Ministries
is an exception to the rule and that most websites critical of
the NWT are more scholarly and professional. Sadly,
that is not true. The MacGregor Ministries site,
appalling though it is, is no worse than many other
Part 1 -
Part 2 -
"Yet these men are abusive
in matters of which they know nothing" -
Jude 10, Weymouth.