and destructibleness is given unusual prominence in the new Bible version in that it consistently translates the Greek word psy·cheʹ by the one word “soul” in the 102 occurrences of the Greek word. This proves to be, not bunglesome, but very revealing on how the clergy of Christendom have adopted and taught pagan falsehoods about the human soul instead of Christian truth.

15. How does the appendix show features about “soul”?

¹⁵ The Appendix groups the occurrences of the word psy·cheʹ under different headings to show that the soul is distinguished from the spirit and that live persons or creatures are themselves souls. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:45 (NW) reads: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” And 1 Peter 3:20 (NW) reads: “The patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days, while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.” But concerning the human soul’s mortalness, hear Jesus’ further words: “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do a good deed or to do an injury, to save or to kill a soul?” (Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9, NW) Also: “Whoever seeks to keep his soul safe for himself will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive.” “He that is fond of his soul destroys it, but he that hates his soul in this world will safeguard it for everlasting life.” (Luke 17:33; John 12:25, NW; compare Joshua 10:28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39; 11:11) “My soul is deeply grieved, even to death.” (Matt. 26:38; Mark 14:34, NW) And so with many other scriptures. But this Christian doctrine that our souls die and that the dead are unconscious and inactive is in full harmony with the comforting doctrine of resurrection.

Further Enrichment of Understanding

1. How has the new translation been careful about the Greek verb?

ONE of the most important parts of speech of any language is the verb. It is doubtless the most difficult part of speech to master. To enrich our understanding of the Christian Greek Scriptures fully the translator must understand that complicated part of Greek speech, the verb. It has a number of voices and tenses and modes. A number of distinctions between all these were dying out with the passing away of the classical Greek and the prevalence of the common or koi·nēʹ Greek in the days of Jesus and his apostles. Yet the modern translator cannot afford to be careless and loose as to the exact shade of meaning of a verb. In Greek the verb tenses not only express the time of an action or state, but also the kind of action, whether starting out, or continuative, or repetitious, or completed at a certain point. Attention to such senses contained in the verb forms leads to a precise translation and a nicety of expression. To some readers it may look like a free translation rather than a literal one, but such is not actually the case. A brief consideration of some cases which show the attention that the New World Translation has given to the descriptive force of the verb will prove enlightening.

2. What does it do with the historical present tense of the verb?

² It appears that, except in the book of Revelation, the New World Translation has done away with the historical present and has rendered all cases of it as verbs in the past tense. Thus, where the King James reads, “Then the devil leaveth [historical present] him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him,” we now read: “Then the Devil left him, and, look! angels came and began to minister to him.” (Matt. 4:11, NW) Note that expression, “began to minister,” instead of “ministered”. This is because the verb “minister” is put in the imperfect tense and here it denotes the beginning of an action that continues for a time.

3. How does it render the present tense to show continuous action and the command to do it no more?

³ A fine rendering of the present tense where it denotes action that still continues from the past is given us at John 5:17. The King James reads: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” But the new version reads: “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” (NW) Another good rendering of the present tense which denotes duration or continuance of action is at John 17:3, which reads: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (NW) Not just coming to know, but their continuing to know, or rather, their taking in knowledge of God and Jesus Christ results in everlasting life. A continuative present we find at Matthew 16:4: “A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign.” (NW) The rendering of the present tense of verbs in the form of a command is interesting. For example: “Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you.” “Keep on, then, seeking first the kingdom.” (Matt. 5:44; 6:33, NW) “Finally, brothers, carry on prayer for us.” (2 Thess. 3:1, NW) As for negative commands: “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.” (Matt. 7:1, NW) To Mary Magdalene Jesus says: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father.” (John 20:17, NW) And the man in bed says to the friend knocking at his door at midnight: “Quit making me trouble.” (Luke 11:7, NW) In these cases the action has been going on, and now the command is to stop it or quit it.

4. How does it show the imperfect tense expresses attempted action?

⁴ Take, now, the imperfect tense: It may express not only the start of an action that continues, but also an attempt to do something. Hence, instead of John’s forbidding a man, we read: “John said: ‘Instructor, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he is not following with us.’ But Jesus said to him: ‘Do not you men try to prevent him.’” (Luke 9:49, NW) Also, Abraham did not actually sacrifice his son, Isaac, but we read: “By faith Abraham, when he was put to the test, offered up Isaac, and the man that had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son.”—Heb. 11:17, NW.

5. What does “aorist” mean? How does it render this verb tense?

⁵ The Greek has also a peculiar tense called the “aorist”, which means “not bounded” as to time. Verbs in the aorist tense may be rendered in a variety of ways according to their context. It is interesting at times to make a difference between these and verbs in the present tense or in the perfect tense. The aorist tense may mark a definite occurrence of something at an unstated time in the past. That is why we read, at Matthew 3:17: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” (NW) Again, it may denote customary or proverbial action, as at John 15:6 (NW) on the vine and the branches: “If anyone does not remain in union with me, he is cast out as a branch and is dried up.” (Also Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:35, NW) Then there is the letter-writer’s aorist tense. While at it he describes his writing as past, because it will be so when his readers get his letter; but today we say it in the present tense, as at 1 John 2:13, 14, NW, “I write you, young children, because you have come to know the Father. I write you, fathers, because you have come to know him,” etc. In commands the aorist, unlike the present tense, denotes the command to do something not yet begun or undertaken, an action at a certain point. For example: “Tell the daughter of Zion, ‘Look! your King is coming to you.” (Matt. 21:4, NW) Also: “Do not become fearful of those who kill the body but can not kill the soul.” (Matt. 10:28, NW) Also: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine.”—Matt. 7:6, NW.

6. How does it show the difference between the aorist and the present tense as to committing an act and practicing something?

⁶ Rather than to denote practicing something regularly, the aorist tense may denote the committing of just one act of that kind. Hence we hear the Devil say to Jesus on the mount of temptation: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.” (Matt. 4:9, NW) And John writes us: “My little children, I am writing you these things that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one.” (1 John 2:1, NW) Contrast that isolated act of sin with John’s using the present tense to say: “Everyone remaining in union with him does not practice sin; no one that practices sin has either seen him or come to know him. Little children, let no one mislead you; he who practices righteousness is righteous, just as that one is righteous. He who practices sin originates with the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from when he began.” “Every person that has been born from God does not practice sin, but the One born from God watches him, and the wicked one does not fasten his hold on him.”—1 John 3:6-8; 5:18, NW.

DOCTRINAL DIFFICULTIES DISPOSED OF

7. What does “periphrastic” mean? How does Luke 21:17 show it?

⁷ One other observation about verbs, and that is an observation about them in the roundabout or periphrastic way of saying things. Proper regard for this form often leads us to a grasp of the right thought of the original and it safeguards us against error. In the similar cases of the periphrastic form we find it translated in a simple way, at Matthew 24:9 (NW): “You will be hated by all the nations on account of my name”; but at Luke 21:17 (NW) the periphrastic sense is more fully brought out in these words: “You will be objects of hatred by all persons because of my name.”

8. How is false doctrine thus disposed of at Matthew 16:19; 18:18?

⁸ Four other cases, when rightly translated, do away with a false doctrine that has been built upon them. At Matthew 16:19 (NW) Jesus says to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loose on earth will have been loosed in the heavens.” At Matthew 18:18 (NW) Jesus says to all his apostles: “Truly I say to you men, Whatever things you may bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and whatever things you may loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.” Thus Jesus did not tell Peter and the other apostles that heaven would wait upon their decision and would afterward confirm and abide by their decision on earth. No; but whatever Peter and his fellow apostles might decide on earth, it would be the thing that had already been bound or loosed in heaven and Peter and his fellows would be merely expressing the prior decision of heaven. Thus heaven would not be dictated to from the earth upward, but the apostles on earth would be directed Theocratically from heaven downward. And so by the simple translation of the periphrastic form of the verb, without the insertion of any added words, the New World Translation disposes of a doctrinal error.

9. How does it help overcome a seeming contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Ac 22:9?

⁹ A nice rendering also helps to overcome an apparent contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Ac 22:9, on whether the men with Saul of Tarsus heard anything supernatural when the glorified Jesus showed himself to Saul on the road to Damascus. This difficulty is overcome by paying attention to the grammatical case of the word voice which is the object of the verb “hear”. That word voice (pho·nēʹ) can mean either sound or voice and it is translated both ways. At Acts 9:4 (NW) we read: “He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him: ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’” There the word voice is in the accusative case and Paul heard what the voice said. But Ac 9 verse 7 has voice change to the genitive case to show that his companions heard of the voice. Hence we now read: “The men that were journeying with him were standing speechless, hearing, indeed, the sound of a voice, but not beholding any man.” (NW) But did they hear with Paul what the voice said? No! For at Acts 22:9 Paul says: “The men that were with me beheld, indeed, the light but did not hear the voice [accusative case] of the one speaking to me.” (NW) He means that, though the men heard the sound, they did not hear what the voice was telling Paul. They did not get its message. But at Ac 22 verse 7 Paul tells us he himself not only heard the sound of the voice but also understood what it was saying: “I fell to the ground and heard a voice [genitive case] say to me: ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’” (NW) So in the footnote, it gives an alternative reading to show that Paul’s men did not hear in that they did not “hear understandingly”.—Compare 1 Corinthians 14:11, NW.

FOR GREATER CLEARNESS

10. What quotations show how it renders the Greek verb for “justify”?

¹⁰ At the start those who have long been enamored of the King James Version may bewail the disappearance of familiar terms and phrases. But in time they will see that the change of names, terms and expressions makes for greater clearness of meaning. Take that word “justified”. Very few people know its Bible meaning. The New World Translation renders the Greek verb for it “declare (or prove) righteous; declare guiltless; acquit; vindicate”. Romans 3:4 now reads: “Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, even as it is written: ‘That you might be vindicated in your words and might win when you are being judged.’” (NW) Paul declares: “I am not conscious of anything against me. Yet by this I do not stand vindicated, but he that examines me is Jehovah.” (1 Cor. 4:4, NW) Jesus declares: “Wisdom is vindicated by its works.” And: “By your words you will be vindicated, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matt. 11:19; 12:37; Luke 7:35, NW) To show our justification by faith in Jesus’ sacrifice, Paul says: “From