THE FIFTH REVOLUTION: THE TRANSLATORS OF NWT13 WERE INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONVEY ALL THE NUANCES AND SUBTLETIES OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT INTO ENGLISH
The Governing Body member, Geoffrey Jackson, was the overseer of those who made NWT13. When NWT13 was to be translated into the Scandinavian languages, Jackson worked together with the Scandinavian translators at the Watchtower premises in Ytre Enebakk, Norway. I received a report stating that he instructed the translators to make an idiomatic translation and not to convey all the nuances and subtleties of the original text into the Scandinavian languages.
The Bible’s text can be treated in different ways. At universities, this text is treated from a linguistic perspective: What can we learn from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts regarding lexical semantics, grammar, and syntax in these languages? At theological schools, the text is read in the light of textual criticism and various theological dogmas.
The Bible Students and Jehovah’s Witnesses read the text from the viewpoint that every word was inspired by God, and that God’s purpose of a restoration of all things could be found in this text.
In 2015, a dramatic revolution occurred among Jehovah’s Witnesses, leading to the rejection of the full inspiration of the Bible.
Few people have understood the magnitude of this revolution, that the biblical basis for the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses was turned upside down. Part III of this series shows in detail how the members of the Governing Body have rejected the view that every account in the Bible was included with a particular purpose and that the nuances and subtleties of the Bible’s text are important.
This article will follow up on the last point, showing how the importance of the nuances and subtleties of the Bible’s text was rejected in connection with the revision of the New World Translation (NWT13).
THE NUANCES AND THE SUBTLETIES OF THE BIBLE ARE IMPORTANT
The Bible itself shows that even the smallest nuance in its original text can be significant. In one instance, Jesus quoted Moses, and his words emphasize the importance of rendering the nuances and subtleties of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Bible. I quite Luke 20:37, 38:
37 But that the dead are raised up even Moses disclosed, in the account about the thornbush, when he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’ 38 He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.”
Jesus refers to Exodus 3:6:
6 And he went on to say: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”
The point of Jesus is that when God says, “I am the God,” and not “I was the God,” this proves that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will get a resurrection. However, this point is not as clear as it seems because there is no verb in the clause in Exod. 3:6 to which Jesus is referring. A clause without a verb is called a nominal clause and is common in Hebrew. In such clauses, the auxiliary verb “to be” is implied, usually with present meaning; thus, the meaning of the clause is ‘I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,’ not ‘I was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’
What is important in our context is that the veracity of an important Christian doctrine can be based on the verb tense: a past tense would not prove anything, but the present tense proves that there will be a resurrection of the dead.
THE TRANSLATORS OF NEW WORLD TRANSLATION (2013) DID NOT VIEW THE NUANCES AND SUBTLETIES OF THE BIBLE AS IMPORTANT
For some time, rumors had circulated that work was being done on a new edition of the New World Translation. And in 2013, the new version was released. When I got this new version and started to read it, I was very surprised and very disappointed. When the Hebrew/Aramaic part of the original NWT was translated into Norwegian, I was one of the consultants. While studying each draft, I compared the English text and the Norwegian translation with the Hebrew and Aramaic texts, word-for-word. I realized that the English translation was extremely accurate, and the same was true with the Norwegian translation. I have also studied the Greek part of the NWT in detail with the same result. The original NWT is a very fine scholarly work, superior to any other English Bible translation in terms of accuracy.
What surprised me most with the new version was that the basic principles behind the original NWT that made it so excellent were rejected. The three characteristics that distinguish the original NWT from all other translations are:
- Accurate renderings of the nuances of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic verbs.
- The use of one English word for each word in the original text, when the context allows it.
- The extreme care to render all the nuances and subtleties of the original text into English.
All three features were rejected by the members of the Governing Body, who decided the translation principles for the revised NWT. The result of this rejection is a translation with many passages that are inaccurate and misleading to the readers.
The most important characteristic of NWT13, from a doctrinal perspective, is that it presents a new view of the Bible.
The translators of the original NWT, as seen in the characteristics of their translation, believed that, because the whole Bible is inspired by God, all the nuances and subtleties of the original text are important and should be preserved in translation. The views of the present members of the Governing Body and the translators of NWT13 are the very opposite: The nuances and subtleties of the original text are not important; therefore, there is no need to make a literal translation and present the nuances and subtleties in the translation. This view is seen throughout the whole NWT13 and cannot be denied.
The consequence of this new view of the Bible is that the readers are led in the opposite direction of interactive learning. There is no invitation to the readers to work with the text on their own, as was the case in the original NWT84. That is not necessary because the translators have made all the necessary interpretations of the text. Thus, the NWT13 supports the new view of the members of the Governing Body regarding types and antitypes— the authority is moved from the text of the Bible to humans, to the 11 members of the Governing Body.
My book My Beloved Religion — And the Governing Body, pages 399-422, has a detailed discussion of NWT13.
In this article, I will show that a great many nuances and subtleties of the original text are not conveyed to readers by NWT13. Therefore, the NWT13 is a Witness showing that the members of the Governing Body do not believe in the full inspiration of the Bible.
THE REJECTION OF NWT84’s PRINCIPLES FOR THE TRANSLATION OF VERBS
Having been an examiner for students of Semitic languages at their exams, I am trained to look beyond the translated text to assess candidates’ qualifications.
Based on my many years of work with the NWT84, I assess that the translators had an outstanding knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. And their knowledge of the nuances of the verbs of these languages surpassed the knowledge of any of the Bible translators of their time.
On the basis of my study of NWT13, I assess that the translators have a good command of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. They have, for example, produced several elegant Hebrew renderings that would not have been possible without a detailed knowledge of that language. However, their renderings of Greek and Hebrew verbs leave much to be desired. These renderings are based on their misunderstanding of Greek and Hebrew aspects and on their unwillingness to render the subtleties and nuances of verbs into English.
THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE MEANING OF HEBREW VERBS
I know that at Brooklyn Bethel in the 1980s, there were records on Bible translation issues, such as a correspondence between F.W. Franz and the Bible translator J.B. Rotherham, and studies by the department that worked to find the nuances and subtleties of the original Bible languages, a department that was dissolved by the Governing Body.[1]
I do not know whether the translators working with the revision of the NWT consulted these records, or whether they refrained from studying this material because they wanted a translation based on completely new principles. However, the articles in The Watchtower of December 15, 2015, where the NWT13 is presented, show that neither did the NWT13 translators understand the meaning of the aspects of Greek and Hebrew verbs, nor did they understand why the NWT84 translators rendered the verbs in the way they did.
I quote from The Watchtower of December 15, 2015, pages 16 and 17:
Why has the rendering of many Hebrew verbs been simplified? The two main Hebrew verb states are the imperfect, denoting continuous action, and perfect, denoting completed action. Past editions of the New World Translation consistently rendered Hebrew imperfect verbs with a verb and an auxiliary term, such as “proceeded to” or “went on to” in order to show continuous or repeated action. Emphatic expressions such as “certainly,” “must,” and “indeed” were used to show the completed action of perfect verbs.
In the 2013 revision, such auxiliary expressions are not used unless they add to the meaning. For example, there is no need to emphasize that God repeatedly said, “Let there be light,” So in the revision the imperfect verb “say” is not rendered as continuous. (Gen. 1:3) However, Jehovah evidently called to Adam repeatedly, so this is still highlighted at Genesis 3:9 with the rendering “kept calling.” Overall, verbs are rendered in a simpler way, focusing on the action rather than on the incomplete and complete aspects reflected in the Hebrew. A related benefit is that this helps to recapture, to an extent, the terseness of the Hebrew.[2]
The explanation above shows that neither did the NWT13 translators understand the real force and meaning of the Hebrew verbs, nor why the NWT84 translators used so many auxiliary forms in their rendering of verbs. They believe the original translators did this to distinguish between continuous actions and completed actions, but that is not the case.
Let us consider the words in green in the quotation regarding Hebrew verbs: “the imperfect, denoting continuous action, and perfect, denoting completed action.” This definition is completely wrong. The examples below show that imperfect and perfect both denote continuous and completed action:
Genesis 2:6
But a mist was ascending (imperfect) from the earth, and it caused the whole surface of the ground to be irrigated (perfect consecutive).
Isaiah 11:8, 9
Isaiah 11:8, 9: And the suckling will play (perfect consecutive) near the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will stretch out (perfect) his hand over the viper’s nest. 9 They will not be doing (imperfect) any harm or be causing ruin (imperfect) in all my holy mountain, because the earth will be filled (perfect) with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering (participle) the sea.
Genesis 2:6 describes a situation that happened before man was created; therefore, when the words were written down, the situation was completed. One imperfect and one perfect is used, showing that both imperfect and perfect can describe completed actions.
Isaiah 11:8 refers to the future, and the actions described are not completed. These uncompleted actions are expressed by two perfects, one perfect consecutive, and two imperfects. This shows that both perfect and imperfect can describe situations that are not completed.
But what is the meaning of the Hebrew imperfect, which expresses the imperfective aspect, and the Hebrew perfect, which expresses the perfective aspect?
THE MEANING OF HEBREW AND GREEK ASPECTS
The Hebrew imperfective aspect is expressed by the Hebrew imperfect and the imperfect consecutive, and the perfective aspect is expressed by the perfect. What is the meaning of the Hebrew imperfective and perfective aspect?
The lexical meaning of a verb and its aktionsart (the way the action is performed) show what the action is. The aspects can be compared to lenses or peepholes, showing what is made visible of the action.
The Hebrew imperfective aspect does not have the same meaning as the English present participle. But the meanings of the two are close, so we can use the English participle as an example to illustrate how the imperfective aspect makes visible a small part of continuous action with details visible.
Please look at examples a) and b) below:
a) Yesterday, Rita was walking (participle) in the garden.
b) Yesterday, Rita walked (simple past) in the garden
Is there any meaning difference between a) and b)? The adverbial “yesterday” shows that the action in both examples was completed, so here there is no difference. Is there any difference in the action? No. Because the verb “walk” is a durative verb, which means that the person walking moves his or her legs forward numerous times, both a) and b) imply exactly the same durative action. The reason why we know that the action in b) is durative is the lexical meaning of “walk.”
In the examples above, the aspects do not add anything to the situation’s meaning. But the participle makes visible a part of Rita’s walking, while the simple past makes visible the whole of Rita’s walking with no details visible. So, neither example a) nor b) adds to the meaning; the difference is only what is made visible. But there are examples where the aspects add to the meaning, as in examples c) and d):
c) When Rita arrived, she knocked (simple past) at the door
d) When Rita arrived, she was knocking (participle) at the door.
The difference between the aspects is that the imperfective aspect (the participle) makes the details of the action visible, while the perfective aspect (simple past) makes the action as a whole visible without its details.
The verb “knock” is an instantaneous verb. Because the imperfective aspect makes details visible, when it is used with an instantaneous verb, it makes visible an iterative, repetitive, or habitual action, an action that is done several times. Therefore, the imperfective aspect (the participle) in example d) adds to the meaning by showing that Rita knocked on the door several times. Rita may also have knocked several times, according to example c). But this is not visible.
Examples e) and f) are Hebrew examples:
Joshua 12:1
e) These are the kings of the land whom the sons of Israel struck (perfect).
Joshua 8:22
f) And Israel kept striking (imperfect) them down until there was not survivor or escapee remaining.
The action in both examples is the same: Much continuous action was necessary to strike several kings and their armies. However, the continuous action is only visible in f) and not in e). What is the difference?
The Hebrew verb nāka (“strike”) is instantanous. In example e), the verb has the perfective aspect. Striking several kings implied significant progressive action. But this action is not made visible. The second example uses the imperfective aspect with the same verb, thereby making the progressive action visible.
I have shown that the imperfective aspect makes the details of actions visible, while the perfective aspect presents actions as a whole, with those details not visible. I have also shown that the imperfective aspect with durative verbs usually does not add to the meaning. But the imperfective aspect with an instantaneous verb may add to the meaning by signaling that the action is iterative or habitual.
The Greek imperfective and perfective aspects can also be viewed as lenses or peepholes that make things visible, in the same ways as Hebrew aspects. The Greek imperfective aspect makes visible a part of an action with details, while the perfective makes visible the whole action with no details.
I use John 17:3 as an example of how NWT84 makes the nuances and subtleties of verbs visible, whereas the NWT13 often does not.
First, I present some background: The imperfective aspect makes visible a part of the action with details visible. This means that we expect to see details of continuous action when the imperfective aspect is used.
Instantaneous verbs do not have continuous action. Therefore, when such verbs are used, what is made visible is repetitive or habitual action. The verb “knock” is instantaneous, as in example g):
g) When Rita arrived, she was knocking (participle) at the door.
But what happens when the imperfective aspect is used on an instantaneous situation, which cannot be repetitive or habitual? Please consider example h):
h) She had been climbing for several hours, and at sunset, Rita was reaching (participle) the peak.
How shall we understand the imperfective phrase “was reaching the peak”? It cannot mean that Rita reached the peak several times, or that her habit was to reach the peak. But because of the nature of the imperfective aspect, we expect to see the details of continuous action somewhere, and the only alternative meaning is i)
i) She had been climbing for several hours, and at sunset, Rita was on the point of reaching the peak.
I use examples g), h), and i) as a background for the new situation I will discuss: the imperfective aspect with a verb that is a state, and I quote John 17:3 (NWT84 above) and (NWT13) below:
3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge (ginoskō) of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.
3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you (ginoskō), the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
The verb ginoskō (“know”) is a stative verb. A state has no action, but any part of a state is similar to any other part or to the state as a whole. The verb is Greek present, which is the imperfective aspect. Because of the imperfective aspect, we expect to see the details of continuous action somewhere. But like instantaneous verbs and situations, there is no action in stative verbs.
What happens when the imperfective aspect is applied to a stative verb that has no action is that the stative verb becomes dynamic, the stative verb becomes a verb of action, as we see in examples k):
j) I have an old car. (stative)
k) I am having lunch. (dynamic)
The verb “to have” is stative, and we see this in j). But this verb can be made dynamic, as we see in k).
The Greek present tense is imperfective, and gonoskō is present. The translators of NWT84 correctly rendered the imperfective aspect in John 17:3 as dynamic. By using the words “taking in knowledge,” the important fact that faith in God and his Son is not static but dynamic, and that knowing God is a process that never stops, is emphasized.
The NWT13 rendering loses the force of imperfective verb ginoskō. The word “coming” in the phrase “coming to know” is not found in the Greek text, which only has the verb gonoskō (“know”). Because “coming” is a participle, it has the force of the imperfective aspect. But the imperfective aspect is applied in the wrong place. The phrase “coming to know” refers to a process that continues until someone comes to know God, at which point the process ends.
NWT84 emphasizes that everlasting life is the process of knowing God that never stops, whereas NWT13 indicates that everlasting life is a process that comes to an end at some point.
The imperfective aspect
| + a durative verb = makes visible a part of the durative action with details (was walking in the garden).” |
| + an instantaneous verb = makes visible iterative of habitual action (knocking at the door). |
| + a durative verb = makes visible a part of the durative action with details (was walking in the garden.” |
| + an instantaneous object that cannot be iterative or habitual = continuous action at some point before the end (reaching the peak). |
| + a stative verb = the stative verb becomes dynamic (taking in knowledge) |
The NWT84 translators scrupulously rendered the Hebrew imperfective and perfective aspects and the Greek imperfective and perfective aspects differently. In all cases, what was made visible was different, such as the examples, “he proceeded to make” versus “he made.”
In many instances, such as in the phrases, “was walking in the garden” versus “walked in the garden,” the aspects do not add anything to the meaning or to any doctrine. However, in many other instances, as I have shown above, the different aspects add to the meaning and to the doctrine.
A good example is John 17:3, where the NWT84 translators followed the rule that the imperfective aspect plus a stative verb may turn the stative verb into a dynamic verb. And the important doctrinal result is that everlasting life is based on a person’s taking in knowledge about Jehovah and Jesus Christ, a process that never stops.
The NWT13 translators have failed to make this point to readers, as well as numerous other points, because they have followed the theory that the nuances and subtleties of the Bible’s original text are not important.
[1]. See the article, «The dictatorship of the Governing Body I — The power struggle inside the Governing Body in the 1980s and 1990s.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2025/03/03/the-dictatorship-of-the-governing-body-i-the-power-struggle-inside-the-governing-body-in-the-1980s-and-1990s/)
[2]. The Watchtower of December 15, 2015, pages 16 and 17.
FAILING TO RENDER THE NUANCES AND SUBTLETIES REVEAL A LACK OF FAITH IN THE FULL INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE
I am sorry to say that the translators of NWT13 have completely misunderstood the force of the Hebrew and Greek aspects, and they have shown no willingness to follow the excellent pattern of the NWT84 translators. The quotation from The Watchtower of December 15, 2025, page 17, where they try to justify why they have rendered Hebrew verbs differently from the original translators, shows this:
In the 2013 revision, such auxiliary expressions are not used unless they add to the meaning. For example, there is no need to emphasize that God repeatedly said, “Let there be light,” So in the revision the imperfect verb “say” is not rendered as continuous. (Gen. 1:3) However, Jehovah evidently called to Adam repeatedly, so this is still highlighted at Genesis 3:9 with the rendering “kept calling.”
These words show that the NWT translators believe the original translators used auxiliary expressions to signal repetition or lack of repetition. But as I have already shown, this is not true.
The importance of rendering the nuances and subtleties of verbs, as NWT84 does, is that readers will see them and interpret them. When the NWT13 translators refuse to convey these nuances and subtleties, they say, in reality, that these are not important and the readers need not see them. The NWT84 invites readers to interpret the text, whereas the NWT13 translators have provided interpretations for readers by not rendering the nuances and subtleties of the original text. I take the quotation from The Watchtower above as a point of departure and compare differences between the NWT84 translators and the NWT13 translators. I start with Genesis 1:3 and 3:9:
NWT84
3 And God proceeded to say (imperfective): “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light.
NWT13
3 And God said (imperfective): “Let there be light.” Then there was light.
NWT84
9 And Jehovah God kept calling (imperfective) to the man and saying to him: “Where are you?”
NWT13
9 And Jehovah God kept calling (imperfective) to the man and saying to him: “Where are you?”
The verbs “say” and “call” are imperfective. The NWT13 translators say that the verb “call” signals repetition but not the verb “say.” How do they know that? By doing this, they have taken away readers’ ability to decide.
The account’s perspective is how God made the earth habitable for humans. The light that God made had to come from the sun, the moon, and the stars, as 1:14-17 shows. Because there are many objects, we cannot rule out the repetitive rendering, “God proceeded to say.”
The sun, moon, and the stars were created “in the beginning” (1:1), which is undated. Something prevented the light from the luminaries from reaching the earth, and 1:14-17 shows the result when this was taken away. How the luminaries were put on the expanse and became visible from the earth is described in detail in 1:14-17:
NWT84
14 And God went on to say (imperfect): “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make (imperfect) the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put ((imperfect)) them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.
NWT13
14 Then God said (imperfect): “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God went on to make (imperfect) the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put (imperfect) them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.
The fact that there were many objects corroborates the rendering “God proceeded to say” in 1:3, 14. Even NWT13 uses the imperfective aspect in 1:16 in connection with these many objects.
But is it important to know whether the translation in 1:3 should be “And God proceeded to say” rather than “And God said”? Whether God spoke once or several times will not influence our Christian faith in Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. But the different renderings reveal different views of the Holy Bible and different views of the basis of the Christian faith.
The quotation says: “There is no need to emphasize that God repeatedly said, “Let there be light.”
Do we understand the full scope of this saying? It is another way of saying that the nuances and subtleties of the original text are not important. Or rather: It is the same as saying that “when we translators decide that a nuance is not important, we do not convey it in translation.”
This is the same as denying the full inspiration of the Bible, that every word is inspired and every account is included with a particular purpose.
It is true that in many instances where the NWT84 translators use renderings such as “proceed to” and “went on” for the imperfective aspect, the readers do not learn much from these renderings compared with those in NWT13. But the NWT84 translators believed that every word is inspired by God, and every word must be conveyed in a translation. Whether some nuances were important or not was for the readers to decide, not the translators.
THE DOCTRINAL IMPORTANCE OF RENDERING THE NUANCES AND SUBTLETIES OF THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE
The discussion above has shown that rendering the nuances of the aspects of the verbs will, in some instances, not add much to the meaning of a text, while in other instances, the aspect may add to, or even change the meaning. There are also many important nuances in the original text in addition to the verbs.
In what follows, I will give some examples of how the theory that the nuances and subtleties are not important has concealed important doctrinal points and led to erroneous translations.
Ephesians 1:8-10 (NWT84 above and NWT13 below):
8 his he caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and good sense, 9 in that he made known to us the sacred secret of his will. It is according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself 10 for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth.
8 This undeserved kindness he caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and understanding 9 by making known to us the sacred secret of his will. It is according to his good pleasure that he himself purposed 10 for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, to gather all things together in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth.
There are strong linguistic reasons for the adverbial again. By deleting this adverbial, the NWT13 has confused an important doctrine: Before Adam and Eve sinned, there existed a unity between God’s family in heaven and God’s family on the earth, and again this unity will be restored through Jesus Christ. This is a part of the sacred secret of God.
Verse 10 is a parallel to Acts 3:2:
21 Heaven must hold this one within itself until the times of restoration of all things of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets of old.
There will be a restoration of all things, and the situation that once existed will again exist. This important point is not expressed by NWT13.[1]
Jeremiah 25:9 (NWT84 above) and (NWT13 below):
9 And I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about.
9 And I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations.
Most scholars believe that the Babylonian captivity of the Jews lasted around 50 years. But Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that it lasted 70 years, as the Bible says. (Jeremiah 25:11, 12; Daniel 9:2; 2 Chronicles 36:21) However, the rendering of Jeremiah 25:9 in NWT13 will destroy this belief, as we see above.
The rendering of NWT13 is wrong. To use the word “surrounding” is a violation of lexical meaning and syntax. The position of “all these nations” in relation to something is not stated, and the word sābib can rightly be rendered by “round about.”
If the reference was to “the surrounding nations,” the period of 70 years would, in context, refer to those nations, not to the Jews. In that case, because each of these nations would not serve Nebuchadnezzar II for exactly 70 years, this year figure must be symbolic and may refer to around 50 years.
Based on a detailed study of the context, a strong case can be made for identifying “all these nations round about” as the tribes and clans within the land of Judah and Jerusalem.[2]
The wrong translation of Jeremiah 25:9 is a typical example of problems arising from idiomatic and interpretive translations when translators fail to take the nuances and subtleties of the text into account.
1 Corinthians 5:9, 10 (NWT84 above) and (NWT13) below:
9 In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators, 10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or (ē) the greedy persons (pleonektēs) and extortioners (harpax) or (ē) idolaters.
9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with sexual immoral people of this world or the greedy people (pleonektēs) or extortioners (harpax) or idolaters.
This is seemingly an insignificant example because the difference is between the conjunctions “and” and “or.” But this is one of the clearest examples of the importance of the tiniest nuances and subtleties of the text. And it is an example of how the Governing Body and translators of the NWT13 have ignored these nuances.
First Corinthians chapters 5 and 6 have a list of nine nouns and one substantivized adjective that are disfellowshipping offenses. The renderings of nine of the nouns in NWT13 show that they refer to concrete and clearly identifiable actions. However, the plural form of the noun pleonektēs is rendered as “greedy people,” and “greed” is a desire or a notion that is very difficult to identify. A person cannot be disfellowshipped because of a desire.
My study of all the examples of the noun pleonektēs and related forms in the Christian Greek Scriptures and Septuaginta, as well as Hebrew cognates in the Hebrew Scriptures, shows that pleonektēs means “exploiter” (one who uses someone or something unfairly for one’s own advantage) and not “greed.”[3]
By wrongly using the conjunction “or” for the Greek conjunction with the meaning “and,” NWT13 signals that pleonektēs (“exploiter,” wrongly rendered “greedy persons) and harpax (“extortioners”) are two different groups. NWT84 uses correctly “and,” which shows that pleonektēs (exploiters) and harpax (extortioners) are the same group.
Because Paul speaks of disfellowshipping offenses, it is important to know whether he refers to two distinct groups or to a single group. The right answer to this question can mean disfellowshipping or not for a person.[4]
CONCLUSION
BELIEF IN THE FULL INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE REQUIRES THAT:
- WE MUST TAKE EVERY ACCOUNT LITERALLY IF THE CONTEXT EXPLICITLY DOES NOT SAY THAT A TEXT IS FIGURATIVE.
- WE MUST BELIEVE THAT EVERY ACCOUNT IS INCLUDED WITH A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
- WE MUST ACCEPT THAT ALL SUBTLETIES AND NUANCES IN THE TEXT ARE IMPORTANT.
THIS ARTICLE HAS PRESENTED A VIOLATION OF POINT 2):
THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY HAVE REJECTED THE TRANSLATION PRINCIPLES OF NWT84, WHICH MADE IT A LITERAL, ACCURATE TRANSLATION.
THEY HAVE INSTRUCTED THE TRANSLATORS OF NWT13 NOT TO RENDER ALL THE NUANCES AND SUBTLETIES OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE BIBLE INTO THEIR TRANSLATION.
THIS SHOWS THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE FULL INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE
[1]. For a detailed discussion, see the article, “God’s administration — his channel of communication. (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/04/10/gods-administration-his-channel-of-communication-2/)
[2]. Ibid., pages 300–304.
[3]. See the article, “The 11 disfellowshipping offenses 1: Not ‘greed’ but ‘exploitation’ (pleonexia)” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2024/11/19/the-11-disfellowshipping-offenses-1-not-greed-but-exploitation/)
[4]. A more detailed discussion is found in My Beloved Religion — And The Governing Body, pages 415-417:
CONCLUSION
Dette er en eksempeltekst til nettsiden. Når du skriver tekst til nettsiden så er det viktig å huske på at det både er en potensiell kunde som leser dette, men også Google skal «lese» denne teksten. Prøv å skriv innhold som er informativ for det produktet eller den tjenesten du tilbyr, der søkeord, fraser og setninger flettes inn på en naturlig og lettleselig måte.
