Jehovah's Witnesses - Respectfully, Why was the New World Translation Bible Written?

Question

Jehovah's Witnesses - Respectfully, Why was the New World Translation Bible Written?

Answer 1

Salutations!



Why is *any* Bible translation written? Why focus on JWs?



Catholics have produced several Bible versions, Evangelicals have produced many versions. JWs have only produced one version. Why not focus on other groups who have produced more than one version? Why do they need so many?



If any group can produce a translation, then JWs can too.



The reasons listed by the NWT translators are some of the following (off the top of my head):



1) English changes over time, and, when the NWT came out in 1950, there were few and far between modern English translations (this has since changed).

2) Modern Bible scholarship has advanced, and the understanding of the Bible languages increases with time.

3) The majority of Bible translations have removed God's name, and the NWT put it back (This is still the case 60 years later).

4) Some traditions and theological bias are found in other Bible translations, the NWT sought to remove them.



Keep in mind that when the NWT came out, there weren't many English Bibles in popular use. Most used the KJV (Protestants) or Douey-Rheims (Catholics). Today it's a bit different, and there are many translations popularly used.



===



Some claim that JWs have "re-written the Bible to fit their doctrine." But this is bad argumentation on the part of JW/NWT critics.



The basis for this criticism goes hand in hand with my point #4 above. The criticism is that the NWT translators altered/doctored their translation in certain verses to fit their doctrine. However, this assumes that the critics know the motivations of the translators. It is a huge assumption, not backed by evidence. A logical alternative is that the NWT translators thought that they were rendering such verses more accurately than what is found in other Bibles, and it is actually the other Bibles that are altered from the original text because of theological bias. The point is, two assumptions are made: 1) The motivations of the translators are known by the critic, 2) If the NWT is different from standard Bibles, the NWT is always assumed to be wrong.



It is demonstrably false that the NWT alters verses to fit their doctrines. If this was the case, then why would they not change these verses? --



In answer Thomas said to [Jesus]: “My Lord and my God!” - John 20:28



And [the Messiah's; Jesus'] name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. - Isaiah 9:6



JWs claim that many of their controversial renderings are more accurate than those found in the standard Bibles. And indeed, when looking at commentaries and grammars, it can be shown that these verses at the very least can *possibly* be translated the way that they are in the NWT (a fact barely ever conceded by NWT critics). However, in verses like John 20:28, the NWT rendered it they way it is because that is what the grammar is saying. If the NWT "altered" the Bible to suit JW doctrine, then surely they would have altered verses like John 20:28 and Isaiah 9:6, since on the surface they appear to directly contradict JW theology.



The fact is, all translators will bring some kind of personal bias to the translation table. It is not enough to say that the NWT translators were biased towards their theology, and is therefore inaccurate since the claim can be made of any other translation.



Yours,



Abernathy the Dull

Answer 2

I would like to add a few observations -



I read through every answer here, and I was pleased with the detail and the consideration of the answers till I got to Mr Lungboy. His answer stood out so differently - and so disrespectful. It made me wonder why. Did he not have logical thoughts - even in opposition - that could be shared?



I am 65 years old - and I began to look into the Bible at an early age - in the early 1950's. For those of us alive at that time, to have a Bible in modern English was almost unheard of. The King James Version ruled the pulpits.



And of course, not only did that Bible have its inaccuracies, but it only had God's name, Jehovah, 4 times. To the everyday casual reader of the Bible, this name could be easily missed.



The reason for this is that the 4 times were in the Old Testament, a part of the Bible which many churches, even today, say is unnecessary for Christians to read, much less believe - other than perhaps the 10 commandments.



So to help those individuals who sincerely wanted to gain the most from the Scriptures, there needed to be a modern English translation that properly replaced Jehovah's name where the King James had removed and put LORD.



Today, we can go into any bookstore, particularly religious bookstores, and find NUMEROUS translations and versions. But I will tell you, in the 1950's, this was not so.



And since this translation was begun in all earnest in 1946, it was even more so then.



We find that most of those individuals who have made "charges" against the New World Translation have not -



1) Read it

2) Compared it to any degree

3) Do not see the benefits that it brought in the original time frame of its production.



It was almost a pioneer in its usage of Jehovah's name - particularly the extent of its usage.



And again, the updating of the language to modern day - opening up not only the understanding but the ease and the desire to read God's word BECAUSE it could be understood.



It was and still is an excellent tool for teaching others. It is precise in its translation and selection of the words - in consistency - which makes it excellent for accuracy and translation to other languages.



If anyone is going to make the charge against the Witnesses for changing or adapting God's word to fit doctrine, they have not read such translations as The Voice. Almost every verse has added words or phrases - albeit italicized - for "clarification" - as if God's word was not sufficient. It was so biased in some of its verses, that I had to have ANY other translation next to me AS I was reading it to determine to what extent they had added to the original text.



There are some awkward phrasings in the New World Translation, even in modern English. That is because the original texts are from different cultures and easy explanations do not always come across in a few words.



The bias most would point to pertains to the trinity doctrine. But since it has been thoroughly explained in printed sources that this doctrine is NOT Biblical, then it is not biased to make the correction or to properly render the verses without the leaning toward the UNSCRIPTURAL reading.



It is the assumption of opposers that a group of men just sat around a table and said "How can we say this in modern English" with no thought to researching and comparing or acknowledgment of scholarly works. That is far from the truth. As is mentioned in a couple answers, the texts and manuscripts that were researched and studied gives the clear picture of the RESPONSIBILITY these men felt as they translated the word of God.



It is a joy to read. And to have to teach others. And most of all, it honors God's name.

Answer 3

One reason is that great progress has been made in understanding the Greek in which the Christian Scriptures were written and this has made it possible to have better and more accurate translations. Another reason is because the English language itself has changed over the years since the King James Bible of 1611, and so a current english translation provides needed clarity.



Also, the finding of older manuscripts have proved to be especially helpful in improving translations of the Bible.



As you can see, there were many reasons for the New World Translation Bible. But most importantly, many other translations were made by those who were influenced by the pagan philosophies and unscriptural traditions that their religious systems had passed down from long ago as well as other influences. For just one example, many translations follow a false tradition of mistranslating God's only personal name (YHWH) as "LORD" nearly 7000 times. The New World Translation Bible, on the other hand has restored God's name to its rightful place. (Matt. 6:9; Luke 11:2).



The New World Translation Bible is a translation that was of the latest scholarship, one that was without spot by creeds or traditions, a literal translation that faithfully presents what is in the original writings and a translation that would be clear and understandable to modern-day readers.



The NWT Bible is available to anyone online:



Online Bible - NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/genesis/1



Additional articles that you may appreciate:



Why a New Bible Translation?

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2001842



How Can You Choose a Good Bible Translation?

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2008327



Choosing a Modern Translation

http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2010/12/choosing-modern-translation.html

Answer 4

When we examine what was going on in the world of Bible translation at the time, it clearly showed that the majority was "writing for the choir", so to speak. They continued the practice of obliterating the Name of God, most reducing Him to a footnote. The best and most blatant example was the "Revised Standard Version" which was created for the single purpose of removing "Jehovah" from the earlier "American Standard Version".



My Mon had one of these giant "RSV" and even a matching Concordance to go with it. And the only place that the "translators" even consider using or referring to the Divine Name was in their explanation of why they removed it.



Since both research that expanded the understanding of many Hebrew and Greek term, and the obsolete and archaic Old English favored by the King James Version that wasn't meaningful to the 20th Century, the translators of the NWT saw the need to have a modern literal translation that brought out more clearly the message of the Bible.

Answer 5

How accurate is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures:



Old Testament:



In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:



"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."



New Testament:



While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.



“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible:

King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation.



The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:



John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8;

2 Peter 1:1



Jason BeDuhn, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair

Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion, Northern Arizona University



Page 163, “it can be said that the NW (New World Translation) emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.” Why? Because the other translations have to deal with the Protestant Burden:



The New World Translation is free from what he calls “the Protestant’s Burden. . . . one aspect of Protestantism that puts added pressure on translators from it’s ranks. . . . “The problem is that Protestant Christianity was not born in a historical vacuum, and does not go back directly to the time that the Bible was written. . . . it did not re-invent Christianity from scratch, but carried over many of the doctrines that had developed within Catholicism over the course of the previous thousand years or more. . . . the Protestant Reformation is incomplete, in that it did not fully realize the high ideals that were set for it.”



Page 164: “For the doctrines that Protestantism inherited to be considered true, they had to be found in the Bible. And precisely because they were considered true already, there was and is tremendous pressure to read those truths back into the Bible, whether or not they are actually there. . . . So even if most if not all of the ideas and concepts held by modern Protestant Christians can be found, at least implied, somewhere in the Bible, there is a pressure (conscious or unconscious) to build up those ideas and concepts with the biblical text, to paraphrase or expand on what the Bible does say in the direction of what modern readers want and need it to say.”



Page 165: “I have identified a handful of examples of bias in the NWT, where in my opinion accuracy was impaired by the commitments of the translators. But the biases of the NWT translators do not account for most of the differences of the NWT from the other translations. Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NWT as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”



“The NWT & NAB are not bias free. But they are remarkably good translations better by far than the heavily biased NIV, often better than the compromised NRSV.”

Answer 6

Ok, since you are saying and I quote; "For a change, I would like to hear from Jehovah's Witnesses why the New World Translation Bible was written"...I would be most happy to give my two cents. ;)



The first consideration would be regarding God's name. Jewish superstitions regarding God’s personal name still survive. Many continue to refer to the Tetragrammaton as the “Ineffable Name” and the “Unutterable Name.” In some circles all references to God are intentionally mispronounced to avoid violating the tradition. For example, Jah, or Yah, an abbreviation for God’s personal name, is pronounced Kah. Hallelujah is pronounced Hallelukah. Some even avoid writing out the term “God,” substituting a dash for one or more letters. For instance, when they wish to write the English word “God,” they actually write “G-d.”



Judaism is by no means the only religion that avoids using the name of God. Consider the case of Jerome, a Catholic priest and secretary to Pope Damasus I. In the year 405 C.E., Jerome completed his work on a translation of the entire Bible into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate. Jerome did not include God’s name in his translation. Rather, following a practice of his time, he substituted the words “Lord” and “God” for the divine name. The Latin Vulgate became the first authorized Catholic Bible translation and the basis for many other translations in several languages.



For instance, the Douay Version, a 1610 Catholic translation, was basically a Latin Vulgate translated into English. It is no surprise, then, that this Bible did not include God’s personal name at all. However, the Douay Version was not just another Bible translation. It became the only authorized Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the 1940’s. Yes, for hundreds of years, the name of God was hidden from millions of devoted Catholics.



Consider also the King James Version. In 1604 the king of England, James I, commissioned a group of scholars to produce an English version of the Bible. Some seven years later, they released the King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version. In this case too, the translators chose to avoid the divine name, using it in just a few verses. In most instances God’s name was replaced by the word “LORD” or “GOD” to represent the Tetragrammaton. This version became the standard Bible for millions. The World Book Encyclopedia states that “no important English translations of the Bible appeared for more than 200 years after the publication of the King James Version. During this time, the King James Version was the most widely used translation in the English-speaking world.”



Jehovah's Witnesses wanted the name of God restored in all instances that it was eliminated. Also, they wanted the most accurate translation out there. Thus, The New World Translation came into existence.

Answer 7

Ones who say that only do so out of bias and no other reason. The don't like that it holds true to the original text and not swayed by theology. The common mistake from many is comparing it to other translations or versions.



For instance, compare it to the King James Version, which knowingly added text to conform to the trinity teachings. If compared against each other, you will see differences. But compare the 2 to the original texts and you will find the NWT wins every time.





So the reality is the NWT is not only accurate, but also uses today's English to make it easily understood.

Answer 8

Secular authorities agree that the NWT is actually a really good literal translation. Whether or not the translators were biased is irrelevant if that bias agrees with the greek and hebrew manuscripts from which they were translated from, which are generally accepted as authoritative sources.



People who argue that the NWT is a perversion because the KJV is magical are beyond deluded.

Answer 9

“The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation.” This translation was originally released in sections, from 1950 to 1960. Editions in other languages have been based on the English translation.

Answer 10

Greetings,



"Jehovah's Witnesses did not “re-write” the Bible to fit their doctrines. The fact is that the vast majority of their *doctrines* were fixed while they were using the KJV and the ASV! ALL our beliefs are derived from what the Bible clearly teaches.



When they translated the New World Translation, their intent was to produce an accurate translation that correctly reflected the original Hebrew and Greek. Witnesses felt that the Bible was the inspired Word of God and were intensely interested in making sure that we understand what the original text really says. They realized that while the old KJV was, and still is one of the best translations around, it was flawed with not having the oldest manuscripts and also being controlled by the theological bias of the rulers and clergy.



This is the main reason that Witnesses produced the NWT, and the facts show that they have succeeded in producing a very accurate translation of the original languages.



Of course, all translation is interpretation. *Every* translation reflects the theological views of it's translators to one degree or the other. No translation is perfect and so each will have it's own 'faults'. Some are very good and some are very biased.



Paraphrased versions (such as the NLT) are the worst followed by "dynamic equivalence" type versions (e.g., NIV). These translations tend to loose important details and add ideas that distort the original meaning. But, even literal versions cannot avoid some influence from the beliefs of the translators.



But, a good example of doctrinal bias is found in the translation of the Hebrew and Greek words for "hell" (SHEOL/HADES). In the KJV, SHEOL is translated 31 times as "grave" and 31 times as "hell" and three times as a hole in the ground. Because of their bias when a good person went to "hell" they translated it as "grave" and when a bad person went there it was translated "hell" because this kept people from seeing that it was actually the same place that everyone went to a death and not a burning place of torment.



So actually most other Bible translations are the ones that have changed the original meaning while the NWT (and other translations) is the one that has not changed the Bible, making the original meaning clear: that the definition of death is a return to the "dust" and an unconscious state (Gen.3:19; Eccl.3:20; 9:5,10; Ps.6:5; 115:17; 146:4; Isa.38:18,19; 63:16; Job 14:21; Ezek.18:4; etc.).



Another obvious place where almost all other translations have changed the inspired text is where God's personal name is used almost 7,000 times in the original Hebrew bible. Most Bibles have blatantly replaced God’s name with the common, ordinary title "LORD."



Young's Concordance under Jehovah says "This name is incorrectly replaced by LORD in the KJV".



God wanted his children to use and respect that Name! If a child doesn't know his father's name, what does that make him? Jehovah condemned those who would "try to make my people forget my name ... as their fathers forgot my name for Baal" (Jer. 23:27).



Replacing the Divine name with a common title "LORD" is the most blatant of blasphemies. It is imitating Satan, who never used that Name, and it is a refusal to imitate Jesus who "made that name known" to all his followers and placed it first, of primary importance, in his model prayer (Jn.17:6,26; Mt.6:9).Refusal to use some proper form of that Name would therefore be a denial of being truly Christian.



Replacing that Divine Name with a completely different word such as "LORD" would elicit the strongest of condemnation (Rev. 22:18,19).



There are many other examples I could give, but the basic fact is that the New World Translation in one of the best translations in existence. In my youth I seriously questioned the accuracy of the NWT and began studying the original languages, gathering dictionaries, lexicons and any other reference works on the original languages.



What I personally found over the years is that in every case where the NWT is criticized by so-called "scholars" it has usually proved to be accurate, and at the very least its rendering is solidly based on the laws of translation such as following the original grammar and word definitions. This is something that I can prove regarding any contested verse in the Bible by e-mail if anyone wishes.



People who claim that we needed to translate "our own bible" in order to support our beliefs are being misled. Most of JW's beliefs had been long established before the NWT ever came into existence and they used the KJV and the ASV.



Yours,



BAR-ANERGES

Answer 11

where other translations omit the name of God and replace it with a title, Lord....etc, The New World Translation honors God with his proper name Jehovah. As there are many Lords but only one true God JEHOVAH, and his purpose is in his word as a guidebook for us to follow in our lives.

Answer 12

Most of the people who criticize it are just repeating what others tell them so it is good you came to us. The thing I like best is it is so easy to understand. I really don't have anymore to say because the others said it for me. I'd like to point out one other thing. Prophet of Regret is an atheist and even he praises it.

Answer 13

You might think it biased if I as one of JW's said that the NWT is one of the best, so why not listen to what some of the leading translators and Greek sholars say:



So here are a few, it may surprise you, so the next time a witness knocks on your door as them for a copy, they will let you have one without charge!



In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work., Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:



Jason BeDuhn associate professor of religious studies in his book compares nine translations including the KJ, "the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available”



Rolf Furuli: "I read the English text of the NWT against the Hebrew text, word for word...the translators of the NWT have been extremely faithful both to their own translation principles and to the Hebrew text."

-Lecturer in Semitic Languages at Oslo University





Steven T. Byington: Of the NWT, "If you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings, this is among the richer mines."

-Christian Century, "Review of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures"



Frederick Danker: "Not to be snubbed is the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Rendered from the Original by the New World Bible Translation Committee."

-"Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study"



Alan S. Duthie: The "Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT,...is certainly not 'filled with the heretical doctrines'...even though a few aberrations can be found...but the percentage of the whole Bible thus affected... does not reach even 0.1% of the whole, which is very far from 'full'.

-"How To Choose Your Bible Wisely"



Edgar Goodspeed: "I am...much pleased with the free, frank, and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify."- professor of Greek at the University of Chicago.

-

Samuel Haas: "This work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship."

On the NWT -Bible Scholar in "Journal of Biblical Literature"



C. Houtman: "The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism."

-"Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift", [Dutch Theological Magazines]



Benjamin Kedar: "I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that [the OT] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible....Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language...I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

-Professor of Jewish, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.



Dr. Bruce Metzger: "On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators."

-Professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and Scholar in Greek, OT Studies and NT Studies in "The Bible Translator"



J. D Phillips: "Last week I purchased a copy of your New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an owner. You have done a marvelous work...but you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I pray God that your Version will be used to His glory. What you have done for the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!"



Charles Francis Potter: In "the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures...the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and acumen."

-The Faith Men Live By



William Carey Taylor: The NT of the NWT contains "considerable scholarship."

-"The New Bible Pro and Con"



Allen Wikgren: It is "independent reading of merit."

-Scholar on the NRSV committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek text



Thomas N. Winter: "The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate...In sum, when a witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to place an order."

-Professor of Koine Greek at the University of Nebraska



EDIT I notice that with such overwhelming reviews on the NWT most of the anti and haters of JW's lay low on this type of question because they can't dispute the facts!

Answer 14

Jehovah's Witnesses did it mainly out of the abundance of Bible versions, arguments over renditions of scriptures, etc. put out by Catholics and Protestants.



Jehovah's Witnesses printed KJV, ASV and many other Bibles prior to the NWT coming out in full in 1960.



They compared every MSS and codex available at the time. Updated editions compare any that have come to light since the previous editions. There is a LONG list of MSS/codexes and such used in comparison and research to prepare the NWT. It is in a chapter or 2 in the book All Scriptures Inspired and Beneficial.



This is not online on the Bible Library yet, but I think it is on computer CD versions and you may be able to get it from a JW (or get the chapters emailed to you if they have the WT library cd).



JWs did it to check for themselves about all these things just as they did about religions, origins of beliefs, etc. The things they found out (and all of us go through this research except maybe some raised as JW) they learned in history works, Greek/Hebrew references, comparing other Bible versions, checking encyclopedias (both religious and secular), etc.



These things are NOT made up by JWs but confirmed in many other sources. Even most of the NWT Bible renderings are confirmed in many other Bibles. Such as the so called "Comma Johannam" or 1 John 5:7 in Old English KJV of 1611 and Douay Catholic of 1609.



Debbie



Edited to add: A friend is sending me some source notes for NWT.



page 309]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Sources for the Text of the New World Translation—Christian Greek Scriptures

Original Greek Writings and Early Copies

Armenian Version

Coptic Versions

Syriac Versions—Curetonian, Philoxenian, Harclean,

Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta

Old Latin

Latin Vulgate

Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts

Greek Cursive MSS.

Erasmus Text

Stephanus Text

Textus Receptus

Griesbach Greek Text

Emphatic Diaglott

Papyri—(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,

P75)

Early Greek Uncial MSS.—Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (א),

Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)

Westcott and Hort Greek Text

Bover Greek Text

Merk Greek Text

Nestle-Aland Greek Text

United Bible Societies Greek Text

23 Hebrew Versions (14th-20th centuries), translated

either from the Greek or from the Latin Vulgate, using

Tetragrammaton for divine name



I'm getting the rest emailed to me. My email is [e-mail]

Answer 15

Would you understand old english?? not many people understand the classic english like the shakespeare for example.. So the bible needed to be changed to our modern language so ppl can understand it.. but not the meaning of the bible nor any scripture has been changed.. no way. just the way we talk.

Answer 16

Wait, is this the start of a Witness fluff post? Cause I'm back in now!



Catholicks bad, make bad bible.



Witnesses needed a new bible so Jehovah sent it via fedex. They didn't want to embarass big-J so they said that the translator was a naughty mouse.



All the Catholicks were mad to see Jehovah giving bibles away so they said mean things, but we didn't care since it was and we weren't, but they were and stuff.



I would provide quotes and sources to back my statement up, but I don't need to now that I'm a Witness again. All my bros and sissies will rate me up and protect me from opinions contrary to mine.



THIS IS SO SUPER COOL AMAZING! PARADICE 2012!! Whose with me?