Jehovah's Witnesses why in 1 Timothy 2:6 did the NWT use the word "corresponding" when it not there in the Greek?

Question

6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all

Answer 1

.. this is because JWs have simply accepted a false translation of the bible.



The greek word here is "antilutron" and it simple means ranson.. i.e payment for something. There is no connotation of such a payment "corresponding" to anything. This is simple a JW addition.



I read Teem's answer to this question before and found it fascinating that he used both Noah Websters definition and Strongs but failed to see that neither actually used "corresponding". It's absolutely fascinating to see a JW mind at work. I'd even go so far as to say it's incredible the amount of mental effort JWs will go to in order to avoid the simple truth.

Answer 2

It's because of their belief that Jesus and Adam are equals. If that's the case and they were right, we're all in a world of trouble. Jesus had to be God incarnate to pay the penalty not only for the sin of Adam but for all humans who ever lived. It is much more than a corresponding ransom, a life for a life. They believe Jesus was just a man, no different than Adam. Again, if that's the case, we've got serious problems because that means Jesus didn't really conquer anything but helping Adam.

Answer 3

Hmmm...

I'm not a Witness, but I am interested in seeing if your claim is accurate.

Here is the previous edition of the NWT, which indicates added words using brackets.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/bi12/books/1-timothy/2/

It does *not* show the word "corresponding" in brackets, and in addition (if you click on the asterisk) it shows the reason for the translation "corresponding".



Now, to the NASB, which is an extremely word-for-word literal English translation.

http://www.studybibleforum.com/htm_php.php3?do=show_marg_and_gh&b=54&c=2&v=6

We see that the Greek word is, indeed, the word indicated by the notes in the NWT ("antilutron" or "antilytron")...but what is the meaning of that word? Is the NWT correct in including "corresponding", or is the NASB correct in not including "corresponding"?



http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/gwview.cgi?n=487



We see that, perhaps, the NWT is being too wordy (and one might wonder at the reason)

but the meaning is "ransom" or "corresponding price" (click on 473 and 3083 to see the word roots)



So:

"corresponding ransom" does not seem out-of-line in light of this and in light of the context. One might argue that the word "ransom" already includes the connotation "corresponding". So: the explicit use of the word (it seems to me) merely emphasizes that the value of the ransom was equitable. That is: the ransom was equal to the cost of salvation for all humans, or equal to the cost of the forgiveness of sins of all humans.

Answer 4

Persons like yourself do the exact same thing that Jesus told his religious opponents: "You strain out the gnat but swallow the camel." You waste time nitpicking over a word, but according to sources not even used by JW's as well as what others on here have stated, that's the meaning that's conveyed, a corresponding ransom. But you're missing the big picture. The first man Adam as a perfect man lost eternal life for the human race. Jesus as the second Adam being a perfect man repurchased what Adam lost by giving up his own perfect life which would make it of course it corresponding or as Hannah put it, equivalent.

Answer 5

And if redemption corresponding ransom for all, why JWs teach that it is redemption (mediator) only to anointed Christians of 144,000 ?



You see, the JWs "add" things that the Bible does not teach in 1 Tim. 2: 5, 6



Revelation 22: 18, 19



For they teach that Jesus is one mediator between God and anointed Christians, the 144 .000



1 Cor. 14: 33

Answer 6

That is a good question. Ransom means to let loose, to release. The Hebrew is kopher meaning to cover (in this case to cover the inherited sin of man). The Theological Dictionary of New Testament comments thusly: Kopher always denotes an equivalent.”



The Greek is antilytron, which, of course, appears in the original Greek at 1 Timothy 2:6. It also is in the New World Translation. It is from anti′, “against; in correspondence to; in place of,” and ly′tron, “ransom [price paid]”). Parkhurst’s Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament says antilytron means: “a ransom, price of redemption, or rather a CORRESPONDENT ransom.” [emphasis mine]



Thus the ransom had to correspond exactly – to be an exact equivalent. That is why the animal sacrifices would never be sufficient (but could only point to the ransom of Jesus). That is why no other human would do. Every human is imperfect. Adam was perfect when he sinned. Animals did not correspond to Adam. Only a perfect man would correspond.



Considering the scriptural need for an equivalency together with the meanings given above in Bible dictionaries, the NWT is well within the proper bounds of the meaning of the Greek when it uses 'corresponding' in the verse. It has neither added to nor taken away from inspired scripture. Neither has it altered the context of the apostle Paul's subject matter. Does anyone rightly suggest that our Lord Jesus did not provide a corresponding or equivalent ransom? That our Lord's ransom sacrifice fell short?



Hannah J Paul

Answer 7

“In Adam all are dying,” said the apostle Paul. (1 Corinthians 15:22) The ransom thus had to involve the death of the exact equal of Adam—a perfect human. (Romans 5:14) No other kind of creature could balance the scales of justice. Only a perfect human, someone not under the Adamic death sentence, could offer “a corresponding ransom”—one corresponding perfectly to Adam. (1 Timothy 2:6) It would not be necessary for untold millions of individual humans to be sacrificed so as to correspond to each descendant of Adam. The apostle Paul explained: “Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin.

Answer 8

Edit to your comments.



In Strong's italic words are the direct meaning of the word thus 'redemption' is the English equivalent of the Greek word: Antilutron



This word in the KJV is translated not as redemption, but as "ransom".



The dictionary defines 'redemption' as an 'equal payment' (Notice two words to describe redemption.)



So in English you could say "He was redeemed" or you could say "He was given a payment of an equivalent value" The two sentences say the exact same thing, only the second uses more words than the first.



Even the word 'Ransom" contains the word 'Redeption'



RAN'SOM, n.



1. The money or price paid for the redemption of a prisoner or slave, or for goods captured by an enemy;



And again redemption means "equivalent payment."



Again your question proves that the NWT is an accurate and better translation of God's Word than those who just use 'ransom'.





---------------------------

My answer to your same question from 2 months ago was:



----------------------------

Strong's



G487 ἀντίλυτρον antilutron an-til'-oo-tron

From G473 and G3083; a redemption price:



Actually the word literal means "a redemption price" this word has been translated as 'ransom'.



Noah Webster's 1827 dictionary:



REDEMP'TION, n. [L. redemptio. See Redeem.]



1. Repurchase of captured goods or prisoners; the act of procuring the deliverance of persons or things from the possession and power of captors by the payment of an equivalent; ransom



Thus the word an-til'-oo-tron means an equivalent ransom. Proving the NWT to be a more accurate translation of the Greek.

-----------------------



Your bias reply:



Add the word equivalent- add the word corresponding and what do you have? Just another NWT adding of word that are not there and having people like you defending the lie...



-----------------------------



My reply to you:



I see from your lack of reading comprehension, I need to restate it in simple terms.



The NWT didn't add anything to the definition of antilutron. It corrected translated it into correct english.



I quoted 'Strong's' and "Noah Webster", neither of which were members of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.



I'm sorry the truth doesn't agree with your beliefs. That is between you and the Lord.



Eph 1:16 making mention of you in my prayers; 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him"



-------------------------------



Now if you do as you did 2 months ago, 'Greytower' will be chosen as 'best answer'.

I can only assume it is because she 'tickles' your ears and agrees with your preconceive belief.



.

Answer 9

I'll buy into the argument that it is equivalent or sufficient enough, meaning not less then enough. What I do not buy into is that it means exact - no less and no more. This is purposely done to promote a conceptual ideal the Jesus was just a man and not God.

Answer 10

Elsewhere, Paul termed this “a corresponding ransom.” (1 Tim. 2:6) What was the correspondence? Adam brought imperfection and death to billions, his descendants. It is true that Jesus, as a perfect man, could have been the source of billions of perfect descendants.* Hence, it was understood that a combination of Jesus’ life plus that of all his potential perfect descendants formed a sacrifice equivalent to that of Adam and his imperfect descendants. However, the Bible does not say that any potential offspring of Jesus formed part of the ransom. Romans 5:15-19 makes the point that the death of just “one man” provided the release. Yes, Jesus’ perfect life corresponded to Adam’s. The focus is, and should be, on Jesus Christ alone. It became possible for men of all sorts to receive the free gift and life because of Jesus’ “one act of justification,” his course of obedience and integrity even to death. (2 Cor. 5:14, 15; 1 Pet. 3:18) How did that result come about?

Answer 11

The Greek used the word that would translate into corresponding. Also, all other scriptures in it about the Ransom are in agreement that the Ransom sacrifice needed to and was the equal to Adams loss in the negative column. Jesus was equal in the positive column.



That is the law Jehovah used on "Of Equal Value" for Justice. In Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, we read the law requiring, "an eye for and eye, tooth for tooth," was never about revenge as the world popularly thinks. It was a law for equal Justice and Righteousness. If a criminal broke a victim's tooth or hand, then the judges would order his tooth or hand be removed so the criminal would pay an equal value of what he destroyed.



So too with Adam, as a perfect human chose to sin and condemn the human race to death. Jesus, as only the 2nd perfect man would offer his life totally faithful and sinless in sacrifice. So as to take Adam's place as father of the human race. That way, he could free us from bondage to sin and its resulting death.

Answer 12

The thought of "corresponding ransom" in context implies what would be acceptable as a Mediator as mentioned in verse 5 just above what you mention.



Christ's ransom was not a "short-sighted" ransom, but one that would fully pay the price, one that is corresponding to the needed price.



The Greek meaning supports this. And the Apostle Paul explains this in 1st Corinthians 15:45 - where he compares Adam to Christ - this is what corresponds. - A life for a life - a perfect man for a perfect man.

Answer 13

It is translatet from Greek. " the one having given himself corresponding ransom over all (ones), the witness to appointed times own;" - 1 Tim. 2:6.

Answer 14

The word means "ransom". While inserting the word "corresponding" as a qualifier might not technically be incorrect, I don't think it would occur to anyone to put it there objectively. Adding this word might not alter the dictionary meaning of the word, it most certainly alters the context. The reason they do this is to detract from any hint at divinity by denying it anywhere they can. They could never get away with obviously and over the top changing thw ord of God, as evidenced by the controversy they have to deal with over "god vs. a god" so they must use subtlety wherever they can. Inserting the word "corresponding" here, they give credence to their claim that Jesus was merely a perfect man and nothing more, thereby "corresponding" to the original sin of Adam.

Answer 15

The difficulty in placing "corresponding" before "ransom" is that it implies Jesus' death was a ransom payment only for Adam's sin. The one man (Adam) brought sin into the world (true) and the other man (Jesus) paid the price for Adam's sin - but that is to miss the point of the substitutionary atonement which is that Jesus atoned for the sin of the entire human race since Adam. Jehovah's Witnesses cling to a ransom theory, that Jesus' ransom corresponded to the sin of the one man, Adam. Basically, that's why they've added "corresponding" to qualify "ransom."



A ransom is something that is paid to provide for the release of someone who is held captive, for example, a slave. But to infer that Jesus' sacrificial death paid the ransom price only for "Adamic" or inherited sin is to miss the mark entirely. Jesus did very much more than just that. They reckon that although Jesus paid the price for the sin of Adam, thereby introducing HOPE to humanity, each individual is supposedly acquitted from their own personal sin when they die. Now that simply is not true!



Hebrews 9:12-15 tells us "Once for all time he [Jesus] took blood into that Most Holy Place, but not the blood of goats and calves. He took his own blood, and with it he secured our salvation forever. Under the old system, the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow could cleanse people's bodies from ritual defilement. Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our hearts from deeds that lead to death so that we can worship the living God. For by the power of the eternal Spirit, Christ offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. That is why he is the one who mediates the new covenant between God and people, so that all who are invited can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant."



And here is the problem with the Jehovah's Witness view of a "corresponding ransom." They say the new covenant is only for 144,000 persons since the time of Jesus. They say that only that limited number of spirit-filled, "anointed" Christians can have Christ Jesus as their mediator. The rest can only hope to remain faithful to the end, striving to do good works and being faithful and obedient to the "anointed remnant" so they MIGHT earn the right to be declared righteous. But not by virtue of the substitutionary atonement of Christ Jesus, because they say the promises in the New Testament concerning the new covenant only apply to a tiny number of people!



Substitutionary atonement satisfied the demands of God’s justice upon sin. With His sacrifice, Christ paid the penalty of man’s sin, bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness, and reconciling man to God. Those who hold this view believe that every aspect of man—his mind, will, and emotions—have been corrupted by sin and that man is totally depraved and spiritually dead. This view holds that Christ’s death paid the penalty for sin and that through faith man can accept Christ’s substitution as payment for sin. This view of the atonement conforms to the biblical view of sin, the nature of man, and the results of the death of Christ on the cross.



But the Jehovah's Witness view is that only 144,000 persons since the time of Jesus Christ can benefit directly from Jesus' ransom, that the righteousness of Christ can be imputed to them. The rest of them (8 million people) are excluded from this. It's a crying shame that they have been so deceived.

Answer 16

According to the Kingdom Interlinear Bible 1Ti 2:6 the word "ἀντίλυτρον" or corresponding ransom is used...

Answer 17

Because it fits

Answer 18

All the originals are gone--it cannot be proven either way.