Article ID: JEE2105ZS | By: Ziggi Ivan Santini


This is an online-exclusive from the Christian Research Journal. For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal please click here.

When you to subscribe to the Journal, you join the team of print subscribers whose paid subscriptions help provide the resources at equip.org that minister to people worldwide. These resources include our ever growing database of over 1,500 articles, as well as our free Postmodern Realities podcast.

Another way you can support our online articles is by leaving us a tip. A tip is just a small amount, like $3, $5, or $10 which is the cost for some of a latte, lunch out, or coffee drink. To leave a tip, click here


Synopsis 1

Debates with Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) often prove frustrating, an endless ping-pong of futile talk, especially when the topic is the Holy Trinity. While essential Christian doctrine asserts that God subsists in three eternally distinct persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — JWs craft their New World Translation (NWT) to mask the New Testament’s otherwise clear teaching that Christ is true deity equal to the Father. JWs deny the deity of Christ and subordinate Him to the Father (e.g., Christ is the Father’s “first creation”).

It is not uncommon that believers leave conversations with JWs perplexed, given that JWs are generally trained in challenging biblical support for the Trinity. The process often involves believers presenting JWs with a biblical passage that supports the doctrine of the Trinity, which is then followed by the JWs presenting a biblical passage that appears to question the doctrine of the Trinity. This process may be repeated over and over until one or both persons end the conversation in frustration after experiencing hitting a ’brick wall’ with no hope of making any impact. However, there is another way to present the deity of Christ to JWs, one that bypasses the typical method of interaction, and instead confronts them with a number of powerful examples of how the NWT applies a specific rule inconsistently to “restore” God’s divine name in the New Testament. The purpose of this article is to provide believers with a practical two-step approach to showing JWs how the NWT is a highly unreliable translation of biblical texts.

According to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS), the divine name should be “restored” in the New Testament when a verse contains “either direct quotations from or indirect references to scriptures that use the Tetragrammaton [the four Hebrew letters signifying the divine name YHWH] in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament.” Alternatively, it should be “restored” when the divine name appears “in the context surrounding a quotation taken from the Hebrew Scriptures.” For the sake of discussion with a JW, we accept (temporarily) the practice of “restoring” the divine name in the NT, but in doing so, we clarify that one must carefully apply this “restoration” rule consistently. The two-step approach is to show sets of NT verses with corresponding OT quotations — first providing an example where the NWT applies the “restoration” rule and next providing an example where it breaks it. The reason for this is simple — the WBTS’s theology does not allow for the rule to be applied consistently. If it were to be applied consistently, the deity of Christ would become clear. Your task is to show the inconsistency of the NWT’s application of the “restoration” rule to the JWs, as well as the implications that this has for the interpretation of the verses.


One of the fundamental differences between the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT, published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society) and common Bible translations is that the NWT claims to “restore” God’s divine name in the New Testament.2 The transliterated version of God’s divine name is YHWH, which is referred to as the Tetragrammaton (the four Hebrew letters). The NWT renders God’s divine name Jehovah (a rendering that is almost certainly incorrect3). Whereas the Tetragrammaton appeared frequently in the Old Testament (OT) Hebrew manuscripts, no evidence exists so far to indicate that the Tetragrammaton or any Greek transliteration of it ever appeared in the New Testament (NT) manuscripts. When translating from Hebrew to Greek, it was common practice — as in the case of the Septuagint (LXX, the ancient Greek translation of the OT) — to render the Tetragrammaton as kurios (i.e., Lord in English). The New Testament writers followed this tradition and used the term kurios when referring to God, except in cases where they used other titles such as theos (i.e., God). However, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS, the official organization of the JWs) claims that the NT manuscripts originally contained God’s divine name, but that the practice of replacing the Tetragrammaton with either kurios or theos developed a century or more after the time of the NT apostles.4 Since the original NT manuscripts have been lost, all that remain are copies (which do not include the Tetragrammaton). The translators of the NWT claim to “restore” God’s divine name in the New Testament (237 times).5 While this “restoration” is not warranted in the first place, it may be worthwhile for believers to temporarily accept this practice for the sake of showing JWs how the NWT is an unreliable translation of biblical texts. Thus, for the time being, we will accept the practice, keeping in mind that the NT of the NWT generally uses the words “Jehovah” or “God” to refer to the Father, and the word “Lord” to refer to Christ.

It is important to understand that the NWT, because of the methods employed by the NWT translators, appears to confirm that Christ is inferior to the Father in being, power, and glory. Thus, the goal in dialogues with JWs is not to overwhelm them with arguments and verses in favor of the Trinity. Rather, the goal is to help them understand that the NWT’s method of “restoring” God’s divine name delivers a message about God’s nature and identity that is in harmony with their theology but not in harmony with the New Testament. Because the translators do not apply the “restoration” rule consistently, the true nature and identity of God is obscured, and the translation therefore cannot be trusted. The goal is to get JWs to question the reliability of the NWT. A number of helpful articles have been published previously in the Christian Research Journal, which may aid in approaching the topic.6 This article continues this past work by proposing a practical two-step approach.

Preparing the Two-Step Approach

It is important to engage in conversation with JWs from a starting point that lays the groundwork for later developments. Most JWs will be surprised if you are aware that the Tetragrammaton appeared in the OT (as opposed to “LORD” in many Bible translations7), and they will be even more surprised when you challenge the idea of “restoring” God’s divine name in the NT. Make sure to challenge this practice and emphasize that there is no evidence to suggest that the Tetragrammaton appeared in the NT. JWs will then predictably respond by providing information from the WBTS’s website, with claims and arguably weak evidence that some fragmented OT Greek translation manuscripts included the Tetragrammaton.8 JWs assert that since the Tetragrammaton may have appeared in the OT Greek translation, it must also have appeared in the NT. However, this assumption is simply erroneous, as there are many reasons that the NT apostles may have chosen not to use the Tetragrammaton, most notably that a precise Greek equivalent did not exist.9 At this point, it is important to get the JWs to agree that no NT manuscripts that contain the Tetragrammaton have ever been discovered. They will likely respond with more rationalizations about fragments of Greek OT manuscripts that may have contained the Tetragrammaton, but make sure to bring their focus back to the issue at hand — that no NT manuscripts containing the Tetragrammaton have been discovered.10

This brings us to the practice of “restoring” God’s divine name in the NT — the “restoration” rule. The NWT’s claim to “restore” the divine name rests purely on the unproven theory that the original Greek NT documents contained the Tetragrammaton. At this point, the JWs will already have emphasized (perhaps repeatedly) that the NT writers often quote an OT verse that contains the Tetragrammaton, which is seen as a justification for “restoring” God’s divine name in the NT.11 The translators of the NWT state that they have “restored” God’s divine name in the NT for several reasons.12 One of the most important ones is in relation to NT verses with OT quotations. According to the WBTS, the divine name should be “restored” in the NT when a verse contains “either direct quotations from or indirect references to scriptures that use the Tetragrammaton in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament.”13 Another important reason given is when the divine name appears “in the context surrounding a quotation taken from the Hebrew Scriptures.”14

When it comes to translating and interpreting biblical texts, two concepts well known to theologians and many practicing believers are relevant here. A skilled translator and interpreter will attempt an exegesis of a text, which means to draw out critically the original meaning intended by the author (reading out of the text — as far as possible letting the text determine the theology).15 The opposite concept is known as eisegesis, which is the practice of interpreting a text in such a way as to introduce one’s own presuppositions, agendas, or biases, or to support a doctrinal position already held (reading into the text — letting the theology determine how the text is understood),16 an issue that the WBTS claims to take very seriously.17 Scholars and students of all sciences are constantly faced with similar challenges of having to adjust their theories to their data rather than vice versa, and examples abound of scientists that have failed to do so.

At this point, bring these concepts into the discussion with the JWs, and ask them which approach should be applied when translating biblical texts. Make sure to emphasize that for the time being, we accept the practice of “restoring” the divine name in the NT, but in doing so, one must carefully apply a rule consistently. Specifically, you can ask, “Would you say that the translator may decide — based on his or her doctrinal position — when he or she should follow the rule of inserting the divine name in a NT verse? Or would you say that if the rule is applied, it must be applied consistently, and the translator is obligated to insert the divine name in all relevant NT verses that fulfill the same conditions?” When asking this question, the JW will most likely agree with the latter option, since most JWs generally believe and assume that qualified scholars were in charge of translating the NWT (if they do not agree, you can show them that the WBTS itself states that an interpreter should translate based on the text and not based on his or her own opinion, see endnote 16). Make sure to repeat this back to the JWs before you continue to the two steps. You can then say, “May I show you two examples where the NWT breaks its own rule?”

The Two-Step Approach

You have now arrived at the peak of the conversation where you will use Scripture to prove your point. Bring your own Bible (I use the English Standard Version here, but any reputable version will do), and ask the JWs to bring their own NWT. Keep in mind that most reputable Bible translations (e.g., ESV) render the Tetragrammaton in English as LORD, with all four letters capitalized to denote that the Hebrew manuscripts contain the Tetragrammaton (as opposed to being rendered as Lord, where adonai/kurios appears18).19

Below I show the two steps, each containing two examples, one where the NWT applies the “restoration” rule and one where it breaks it. The reason for this is simple — the WBTS’s theology does not allow for the rule to be applied consistently. If it were to be applied consistently, the deity of Christ would become clear. Your task is to show to the JWs the inconsistency of the NWT’s application of the “restoration” rule, as well as the implications that this has for the interpretation of the different verses. For each example below, I show the relevant NT verse as well as the corresponding OT verse that the NT is quoting.

Step 1

Example 1.1 (“restoration” rule applied) (specific word in bold type)

Romans 10:13

ESV: For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

NWT: For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”

Joel 2:32

ESV: And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.

NWT: And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.

 

In Romans 10:13, Paul is quoting an OT passage that originally referred to YHWH, and he is quoting it in direct reference to Christ. In the preceding verses (e.g., “Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord” [Rom. 10:9 ESV]), it is clear that the “Lord” here refers to Christ. Since the OT verse refers directly to YHWH, the theology behind the NWT cannot allow the quote to apply to Christ. Thus, the “restoration” rule is applied here (and also in Acts 2:21, which also quotes Joel 2:32) in order to conceal Paul’s application of the OT verse to Christ. When going through these verses, try to explain how each translation of Romans 10:13 will inevitably lead to different and conflicting interpretations. But while doing so, keep in mind that example 1.1 must be followed by example 1.2 — the latter example must be shown just after the former, in order to make the argument that the NWT uses the “restoration” rule inconsistently.

Example 1.2 (“restoration” rule not applied) (specific word in bold type)

1 Peter 2:3–4

ESV: …if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious…

NWT: …provided you have tasted that the Lord is kind. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but chosen, precious to God…

Psalm 34:8

ESV: Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!

NWT: Taste and see that Jehovah is good; Happy is the man who takes refuge in him.

 

In the second example, Peter is using the language from Psalm 34 and applying it to Christ. The verbal parallel is crystal clear: Peter is citing the psalm but adapting the form of the verb to fit his exhortation. Those familiar with Greek can compare the language used in the Septuagint version with the Greek used in 1 Peter 2:3 and will find that the language is almost identical. The words used by Peter constitute, at the very least, an indirect reference to Psalm 34:8 (some might call it an adapted quotation or a verbal parallel). However, the NWT makes it nearly impossible for the reader to grasp the connection that Peter appears to intend. First, the word for “good” is the Greek word chrēstos (χρηστὸς), which is generally translated as good, gracious, easy or kind.20 While all of these options may be valid, it is useful to note that both the Septuagint and NT verses use the word chrēstos (i.e., the LORD is chrēstos [LXX]; the Lord is chrēstos [NT]). Moreover, the Greek phrase chrēstos ho kyrios is common in the Septuagint and consistently describes YHWH. The original Hebrew rendering is YHWH Tov, which appears various places in the OT.21 Second — and most importantly — the translators of the NWT did not apply their own “restoration” rule. The reason is obvious: Peter’s continuation in verses 4 and following makes it clear that the “Lord” here is Christ. Applying the “restoration” rule in this case would equate YHWH with Christ. By not applying the “restoration” rule here, the translators have let their doctrinal position determine the interpretation and rendering of the text, a clear example of eisegesis.

Step 2

Example 2.1 (“restoration” rule applied) (specific word in bold type)

Romans 14:11

ESV: For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

NWT: For it is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says Jehovah, ‘to me every knee will bend, and every tongue will make open acknowledgement to God.’”

Isaiah 45:23

ESV: By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’

NWT: By myself I have sworn; The word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, And it will not return: To me every knee will bend, every tongue will swear loyalty.

 

In Romans 14:11, Paul is again quoting an OT verse directly in reference to Christ. The preceding verses make it clear that the “Lord” (kurios) referred to is Christ (e.g., “For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living” [Rom. 14:9 ESV]). Romans 14:11 is not just any verse, but one that clearly equates Christ with the one and only YHWH of the OT. The translators of the NWT have applied the “restoration” rule here to prevent the reader from identifying Christ as being the person speaking in Isaiah 45:23. Notice that Paul adds the words “says the Lord” (kurios) in Romans 14:11, even though the OT verse he is quoting does not contain these words (this will become important when continuing to example 2.2). As noted, according to the WTBS, the “restoration” rule should be applied when the divine name appears “in the context surrounding a quotation taken from the Hebrew scriptures.”22 In this case, the translators have applied the “restoration” rule in Romans 14:11, arguing that this is justified because the divine name appears in the context surrounding Isaiah 45:23 (the preceding verses mention the divine name and make it clear that YHWH is speaking, see Isaiah 45:21). When going through the verses, try to explain how the different translations of Romans 14:11 will lead to very different interpretations of what Paul is saying: either Paul is purposely equating Christ with YHWH, or Paul is simply quoting the OT but does not equate Christ with YHWH. Again, keep in mind that example 2.1 is not in and of itself a sufficient argument against the translation practices behind the NWT. Rather, it is necessary to continue to example 2.2 in order to make the point by comparison.

Example 2.2 (“restoration” rule not applied) (specific word in bold type)

Hebrews 1:8–10

ESV: But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands.”

NWT: But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprighteousness. You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.” And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.”

Psalms 102:25

ESV: Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

NWT: Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

 

In the last example, the writer of Hebrews uses an OT passage in direct reference to Christ, which originally was expressed by the psalmist in reference to YHWH. To make sure this is understood, rather than going directly to Psalm 102:25, you may ask the JW to follow Psalm 102 from the beginning (“O Jehovah, hear my prayer…” [NWT]) through to verse 25. In this example, the NWT again breaks its own “restoration” rule, even though the divine name appears in the context surrounding the quotation (the preceding verses contain the divine name and make it clear that the psalmist is speaking to YHWH, see Psalm 102:22). Notice that the writer of Hebrews, in a similar way as Paul in Romans, adds the words “You Lord” (Heb. 1:10 ESV), even though the OT verse does not include these words. This begs the question: why did the translators of the NWT not apply the “restoration” rule here? In the context of this particular example, JWs may argue that the translators did not apply the “restoration” rule since the OT verse does not contain the words that the apostle added. However, such an argument cannot be sustained, since the rule was readily applied in Romans 14:11. This leaves just one explanation, namely that the doctrinal position held by the translators did not allow for the “restoration” rule to be applied here, since it would equate Christ with YHWH. Another clear example of eisegesis in action.

Jesus Is YHWH

Going through these four examples should provide firm observable evidence that the translators of the NWT have purposefully translated the NT manuscripts in a way that hides the deity of Christ. Although the practice of “restoring” the divine name cannot be justified in the first place, it becomes evident that a consistent use of the rule inevitably leads to the same conclusion, that is, the NT apostles used OT verses to equate Christ with YHWH.

Although this is compelling evidence, do not expect JWs to readily change their position. Without sufficient doubt regarding the reliability of the WBTS, JWs will be inclined to favour the justifications made by the WBTS. For example, although the writer of Hebrews clearly identifies Christ as the creator of the heavens and the earth, there is always a way for the WBTS to rationalize how this does not contradict their established doctrine (e.g., Christ acted as Jehovah’s “Agent in creating the universe”).23 For this reason, it is vital to stress that the only way for the NWT translators to maintain support for their doctrine is to violate their own rule in certain places where their theology demands it. If you succeed in convincing JWs that the NWT is an unreliable translation, try to get them to agree to continue the dialogue on the one condition of using a reputable Bible translation.

Deeper study of the Bible in its original languages strongly supports the doctrine of Christ as being both equal to the Father and truly divine. In fact, countless examples throughout the Bible establish that Christ shares attributes, characteristics, and titles with YHWH such that it is impossible to arrive logically at the conclusion that He is not YHWH.24 To take one example, in the Old Testament, the LORD God of Israel calls His people to be His witnesses (Isa. 43:10). In the New Testament, Jesus Christ proclaims to His people, “you will be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8 ESV, emphasis added). As we witness to the world, including to those who falsely believe they are Jehovah’s witnesses, we must make it known that to call upon “the name of the LORD” (Joel 2:32 ESV) is to call upon the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 2:21).

Ziggi Ivan Santini holds a PhD in mental health from the University of Barcelona, and is currently a researcher at the Danish National Institute of Public Health (University of Southern Denmark). He also holds a Master of Public Health and a BA in psychology, criminology, and religious studies.

NOTES

  1. The author is immensely grateful for the academic support provided by Prof. Byron G. Curtis (Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PA) in revising this paper.
  2. “Appendix C: The Restoration of the Divine Name in the ‘New Testament,’” Watch Tower Bible and Track Society of Pennsylvania, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 2021, https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament/.
  3. There is widespread agreement among scholars that the Tetragrammaton is most likely a two-syllable word, not three. The English form “Jehovah” is based on a mistake that first appeared in Latin Bibles in AD 1100–1200. Hence, Jehovah is not a Hebrew name for God. According to Terrence Fretheim, “The transliteration of the present [Hebrew] form, ‘Jehovah,’ does not represent any known ancient pronunciation; such a form did emerge in the Middle Ages, however, and has had a hallowed usage in Christian hymnody.” Terrence Fretheim, “Yahweh,” in The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol. 4, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 1293.
  4. “Appendix C: The Restoration of the Divine Name in the ‘New Testament,’” https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament/.
  5. “Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?” Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 2021, Jehovah’s Witnesses, https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20080801/name-in-new-testament/.
  6.  See, e.g., James R. White, “Effectively Sharing the Deity of Christ with Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Christian Research Journal, vol. 20, no. 2 (1997), Christian Research Institute, https://www.equip.org/articles/effectively-sharing-the-deity-of-christ-with-jehovahs-witnesses/; James R. White, “Getting over the Hurdles of the New World Translation,” Christian Research Journal, vol. 29, no. 3 (2006), Christian Research Institute, https://www.equip.org/articles/getting-over-the-hurdles-of-the-new-world-translation/.
  7. JWs will often criticize the use of otherwise reputable Bible versions, such as the King James Version, NASB, ESV, and others for using the term “LORD” rather than Jehovah, YHWH, or Yahweh in the OT. Early Bible translations generally translated from the Greek OT manuscripts rather than the Hebrew OT manuscripts, which predominantly used the term kurios. While it may be appropriate for Bibles to include the Hebrew divine name in the OT, the same may not be said for the NT.
  8.  See “Appendix A: The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures,” Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 2021, Jehovah’s Witnesses, https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-a/divine-name-christian-greek-manuscripts/.
  9. Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, “Aspects of Rendering the Sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek,” Open Theology 1 (2015): 56–88, De Gruyter, https://doi.org/10.2478/opth-2014-0006.
  10. Even the WBTS recognizes this fact. Their “restoration” argument presupposes it: “Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called ‘New Testament’? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered.” “Jehovah: Use of the Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures,” in Aid to Bible Understanding (New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1971), 887, https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200012337#h=45. Cf. “God’s Name and the New Testament,” in “The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever” (Brochure) (n.c.: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 2006), 23, https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101984305#h=3.
  11. “Appendix C: The Restoration of the Divine Name in the ‘New Testament,’” https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament/.
  12. “Appendix C: Verses Where the Name Jehovah Does Not Appear as Part of Direct or Indirect Quotations,” Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 2021, https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/jehovah-new-testament-2/.
  13. “Appendix C: The Restoration of the Divine Name in the ‘New Testament,’” https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament/.
  14. “Appendix C: Summary of Reasons for Restoring the Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures,” Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 2021, Jehovah’s Witnesses, https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/jehovah-new-testament-2/#link0; cf. “The Restoration of the Divine Name in the ‘New Testament,’” https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament/.
  15. “Exegesis,” Oxford Biblical Studies Online, http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e644.
  16. “Eisegesis,” Oxford Biblical Studies, Online, http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e583.
  17. The WBTS states that “extremes in rewording the text must be avoided. A translator who liberally paraphrases the Bible according to how he interprets the overall idea could distort the meaning of the text. How so? The translator may erroneously insert his opinion of what the original text means or may omit important details contained in the original text….Doctrinal bias can easily color a translator’s work.” “Appendix A: Principles of Bible Translation,” Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 2021, Jehovah’s Witnesses, https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-a/bible-translation/.
  18. Kurios is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew adonai, both rendered as Lord in English.
  19. You may also suggest that the JWs bring a “Kingdom Interlinear,” which is an interlinear Bible (showing verses in both Greek and English) published by the WBTS. The interlinear is perhaps not necessary for the two-step approach except for the sake of showing that no verse in the Greek NT text contains the divine name. It may also be helpful for further illustrations regarding the NWT’s inconsistent application of grammatical translation rules (see previously cited Christian Research Journal articles) — these are also powerful examples of how the translators of the NWT purposely translate certain verses so as hide the deity of Christ but fail to apply the same grammatical translation rules they have kept elsewhere. Surprisingly, alongside the NWT, the Kingdom Interlinear provides a translation of the Greek into English that appears to be more or less in harmony with reputable Bible translations and essential Christian doctrines. See Greta Olsoe, “The New World Translation on Trial in the Watchtower’s Own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures,” Part 2, Sound Witness, https://www.soundwitness.org/jw/KIT_part2.htm.
  20. “χρηστὸς,” Bible Hub, https://biblehub.com/greek/chre_stos_5543.htm.
  21. Psalms 34:8, 100:5, 135:3, 145:9; Jeremiah 33:11; Nahum 1:7; Lamentations 3:25.
  22. “Appendix C: Summary of Reasons for Restoring the Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures,” https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/jehovah-new-testament-2/#link0.
  23. In providing an answer to who “laid the foundations of the earth,” the WBTS writes: “The psalmist was talking about God, but the apostle Paul applied these words to Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 1:10, 11) As it turns out, these words also apply to Jesus, for he acted as Jehovah’s Agent in creating the universe. (Colossians 1:15, 16) So Jesus, too, could be said to have ‘laid the foundations of the earth.’” “Bible Highlights Psalms 73 to 106,” Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Watchtower Online Library, 2021, https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1986928#h=34:2-35:316.
  24.  Joel S. Peters, “Christ’s Divinity Proved by the JW Bible,” Catholic Culture, https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=689.