--- title: Three Groups, One Move url: https://jw-apologetics.app/arguments/three-groups-one-move/ markdown: https://jw-apologetics.app/arguments/three-groups-one-move.md type: argument perspective: Protestant (historic Nicene) response to Jehovah's Witness teaching topics: [Authority, Epistemology] challenges: ['Only 144,000 Go to Heaven — The Rest Live on Earth'] verses: [Galatians 1:8, Matthew 24:35, John 8:58] strength: Strong tone: Good attribution: Jeff Durbin / Apologia Studios added: '2026-04-02' last_reviewed: '2026-04-02' index: https://jw-apologetics.app/llms.txt --- # Three Groups, One Move *The Bible Is Broken and We Have the Fix* ## Doorstep Question > "Did you know that Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses all make the exact same claim — that the Bible as received is broken, and only their group has the fix? What are the odds all three are right? What if the reason they all need the Bible to be broken is that what it actually says doesn't support what they want to teach?" ## JW Claim The Bible has been mistranslated by trinitarian scholars. The New World Translation restores the correct meaning, including God's name which was removed from the New Testament by copyists. ## Strategy This is a pattern-recognition argument. Expose the shared structural move across three groups that Christians encounter: - Muslims say: "The Bible has been corrupted over time." Their fix: the Quran is the final, uncorrupted revelation. - Mormons say: "The Bible is missing many plain and precious parts." Their fix: the Book of Mormon restores what was lost. - Jehovah's Witnesses say: "The Bible has been mistranslated by trinitarian scholars." Their fix: the NWT restores the divine name and correct understanding. The move is always the same: undermine confidence in the Bible just enough to create a gap, then insert your own authority into that gap as the corrective. Three different groups. Three contradictory "corrections." One shared strategy. The Muslim says Jesus didn't die on the cross. The Mormon says Jesus visited the Americas. The JW says Jesus is Michael the Archangel. They can't all be right. But they're all using the same move. Then ask: "What if the Bible isn't broken? What if the reason three different groups need to claim it's broken is because what it actually says doesn't support what they want to teach?" This positions the JW alongside the Christian against the others before gently asking: "Could the same thing be happening with the NWT?" For the manuscript evidence that demolishes the "Bible is broken" premise, pivot to argument bible-reliability. ## Key Insight The corruption claim is not an independent conclusion reached by examining evidence — it is a necessary precondition for preaching a different gospel without falling under Paul's anathema in Galatians 1:8-9. The Bible has to be "broken" because if it isn't, what it actually says condemns the alternative. ## JW Responses & Counters ### Response 1 **JW says:** "We don't say the Bible is corrupted — we say it's been mistranslated by trinitarian scholars." **Counter:** That's the same structural move Muslims and Mormons make — "the Bible is fine, but only we can read it correctly." Muslims say the Quran corrects misreadings. Mormons say the Book of Mormon restores lost truths. You say the NWT fixes trinitarian bias. Three groups, one move. But the NWT is built on the same Westcott-Hort / Nestle-Aland Greek text as every other modern translation. If the manuscripts are reliable enough for the NWT, they're reliable for everyone. ### Response 2 **JW says:** "God's name was removed from the New Testament by copyists — that's a fact." **Counter:** But your own publications also say the Bible has been faithfully preserved — a 2017 Watchtower said "emphatically, no" to the question of corruption. If the most important word in the Bible was removed from all 5,800+ Greek manuscripts without leaving a single trace, that's not faithful preservation — that's the worst corruption in history. Both claims can't be true. ### Response 3 **JW says:** "At least we use God's name — other translations took it out." **Counter:** In the Old Testament, the divine name appears in the Hebrew text and should be acknowledged — I agree with you there. But the New Testament is different. Not one of nearly 5,800 Greek manuscripts contains the name Jehovah. The NWT inserts it 237 times with zero manuscript support. That's not restoring the text — it's altering it. And Jesus himself promised in Matthew 24:35 that his words would never pass away. Do you believe he kept that promise? ### Response 4 **JW says:** "The Bible has gone through so many translations — how can we trust it?" **Counter:** Common misconception. We don't translate from translations. Modern Bibles — including the NWT — go directly back to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. There's no telephone game. And your own Kingdom Interlinear Translation shows the Greek word-for-word alongside the NWT. Have you ever compared them? In dozens of passages, the Greek says one thing and the NWT says another. ## What to Avoid Don't get drawn into a debate about whether "Jehovah" is God's name — that's a separate question and one JWs are trained for. Stay on the narrow point: three groups make the same move, the manuscripts don't support the changes, and the Watchtower's own publications affirm biblical preservation. ## Homework Look at the Kingdom Interlinear Translation this week — your own publication. Compare the Greek column with the NWT column in John 8:58. Just see what you notice. ## Next Moves - [The Bible Has Not Been Corrupted](https://jw-apologetics.app/arguments/bible-reliability.md) - [The New World Translation — Anonymous and Unqualified](https://jw-apologetics.app/arguments/nwt-reliability.md) - [The Angel from Heaven](https://jw-apologetics.app/arguments/angel-from-heaven.md)