Biased bible versions?

Question

I have a copy of the new world translation of the holy scriptures issued by the watchtower society. I would like to know if bible versions published by different religious movements , in this case the jehovas witnesses is in any way biased or differs significantly from lets say, those published by the catholic church. I have only discovered that in my version the word god has been substituted for Jehova.

Answer 1

ACCORDING to one count, as many as 55 new English translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were published between 1952 and 1990. Translators’ choices mean that no two read alike. In order to assess the reliability of the translators’ work, Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona, U.S.A., examined and compared for accuracy eight major translations, including the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The result?

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.

BeDuhn noted, too, that many translators were subject to pressure “to paraphrase or expand on what the Bible does say in the direction of what modern readers want and need it to say.” On the other hand, the New World Translation is different, observed BeDuhn, because of “the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”

Answer 2

All Bible versions are biased at least as much as the translation team's understanding of the language and culture. This will always color the rendering of the passages.

For example, we read the word "world" in a lot of places in the opening chapters of Genesis, when it should actually be translated as "land". The Hebrew word "eretz" has several meanings, and it is just assumed that the mankind spread throuhgout the "world", that the flood covered the "world" and that the "world" was cursed after the fall.

All of these verses make a lot more sense if you substitute the word "land" in each case:

The "land" was cursed and became a desert (Eden was located in Iraq where the Tigris and Euphrates come together--Iraq receives almost no rainfall, and the land really seems to be unusually cursed.)

The "land" was flooded in an area where the rivers are known to have destroyed entire civilizations. The Sumerian fell about 2000 BC due in part to the Euphrates changing course and flooding the southern cities in the area.

Men spread throughout the "land" rather than the world implies a migration that the writer could have actually known about rather than assuming the writer was aware of North and South America, the Pacific Islands, Australia and the Far East.

(I came to this conclusion when I learned that the Sumerians very frequently called their own country "the Land" as if that was it's name. Can you see how making an insignificant change like this changes the meanings of entire stories?)

Answer 3

The New World Translation is a very bad translation. I would recommend you destroy it or return it. I don't say this lightly, but it is essential you don't use it. You should get another translation.
As far as I know, most of the major denominations don't actually do their own translations, although I believe some donate to organizations which do them.
To be realistic, a Bible (and a Bible Translation organisation), like a Church, has to make a profit. I know this sounds cynical, but it is a fact of life. There are many versions of the Bible which aren't for sale because, like thousands of Churches through history, they ran at a loss. So a Bible has to combine good "readability" and "understandability" with good accuracy and a very high reverence towards God to be commercially successful. Some Bibles, such as the Living Bible or the Good News Bible (this is the version I use), loose a small amount of accuracy so they can gain more readibility and understanding of a theme. Other Bibles, such as the New Revised Standard Version or the Amplified Bible go the other way, and sacrifice a degree of readibilty for accuracy (on the basis the purchaser has the reading ability to understand what they are reading).
The King James Bible is a special case because it is reknowned for it's accuracy and is still used by many preachers even though it is sometimes hard to understand.
In all cases there is a fundamental requirement for reverence towards God. Christians will not buy a Bible if they believe it is inaccurately translated or is irreverant towards God.
This issue with accuracy and reverance is fundamental to why you shouldn't use the New World Translation. Unlike the Bibles mentioned above, the New World Translation doesn't have the same degree of accuracy and reverance towards God that most modern Christians expect.
One example is the Jehovah's Witness "The Lord's Prayer". I strongly recommend you don't use their one and use the one from a Baptist, Anglican, other Protestant Church or from the Bible (Matthew Chapter 6).

Answer 4

In answer to "The Last Ent Wife"

Some Bible translations say: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

But notice, verse 2 says that the Word was “in the beginning WITH God.” And while men have seen Jesus, verse 18 says that “no man hath seen God at any time.” (Authorized or King James Version)

So we find that some translations of verse 1 give the correct idea of the original language when they read: “The Word was with God, and the Word was divine,” or was “a god,” that is, the Word was a powerful godlike one. (An American Translation)

Clearly, Jesus is not Almighty God. In fact, Jesus spoke of his Father as “my God” and as “the only true God.”—John 20:17; 17:3.

Incidentally the King James version contains spurious verses that are not found in the original Hebrew and Greek writings. Such as at 1 John 5:7, which, according to the King James Version, says: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” However, more modern versions omit this passage. Why? The Catholic Jerusalem Bible explains in a footnote that this text is not found in any of the early Greek or the best Latin manuscripts of the Bible. It is spurious. It was added, no doubt, to try to support the Trinity.

Answer 5

This question seems to focus on "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures", which is distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses. There are more than 130 million copies of this modern-language bible in print, in dozens of languages.
http://watchtower.org/languages.htm

The entire text of NWT is freely available at the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses, and a personal printed copy can be requested at no charge:
http://watchtower.org/bible/
https://watch002.securesites.net/contact/submit.htm
http://watchtower.org/how_to_contact_us.htm


Jehovah's Witnesses certainly like NWT, but they are happy to use any translation which an interested person may prefer, and in fact Jehovah's Witnesses themselves distribute other translations besides NWT. Jehovah's Witnesses attach no particular infallibility or inspiration to NWT.

Since the same manuscripts used by the NWT translators are still widely available for study, and since there are dozens of alternate translations for comparison, anyone who chooses to use NWT does so informedly.

It seems that the vast majority of the criticism against the New World Translation is actually as a proxy for blind hatred against Jehovah's Witnesses. The hatred must be "blind" since secular experts of biblical Hebrew and Greek have consistently refused to condemn any particular verse or phrase as an unacceptable translation. Instead, it is religionists with preconceived theologies who bigotedly insist upon particular wordings, since these are necessary to prop up the shakey tenets of their false worship.

(2 Timothy 4:3-5) For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories. You, though, keep your senses in all things, suffer evil, do the work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.

It seems signficant that the relatively small religion of Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones best known for their worldwide preaching work. Yet Jesus commanded that ALL who would call themselves "Christian" perform this public work:

(Matthew 28:19,20) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And, look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/library/pr/article_04.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/na/
http://watchtower.org/e/20020915/article_01.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050715/article_02.htm

Answer 6

They are all biased, why do you think the "King James" bible's
alled the King James Bible,
Try looking up a Doc. George Scott or a Doc. Mellissa Scott
They do a lot of teaching from the orginal languages,
As far as the Jehovah's witness's or the Latter Day Saints,
remember this, the Bible they say is true, (to which they add their own) say to not believe a false prophet, to totally ignore anyone who prophesies falsely,
ask them about the prophecies of their founders.
My paticular denominational choice is Missiouri Synod Lutheran,
You might check us out.
Good Luck and God Bless,

Answer 7

Try using the King James Version if you can't get your hands on a Gutenberg Bible. These are 2 of the oldest and most accurate versions. Unless you know how to read ancient Greek and Hebrew and Egyptian, you won't be able to read the original texts that are under lock and key in the Vatican that the Catholics don't want the rest of the world to see because it would disprove their entire hold on the world.

Answer 8

Get a King James Bible, not a (New King James version) and a Strong's Concordance. The Strong's takes the words back to the original languages and tells you the meanings of them.

Answer 9

Just learn Koine Greek and read the Greek New Testament, that way you wont have to worry about reading a twisted version of the Bible. I do not know much about JWs, but one told me that in the Greek there was a comma in a certain spot and parentheses in another, but in the original Greek there was no parentheses, no commas, no periods, no lower-case letters, and not even spaces between words. These manuscripts make up the earliest New Testament fragments. All commas, parentheses, and even periods are just placed there to help the reader.

Answer 10

Hi. While there probably are other religions who have altered their Bibles/Holy Books to fit their own beliefs, we Witnesses have altered our beliefs to fit the Bible. Case in point we for years always assumed Jesus was clean shaven. One day someone pointed out to us that the Bible refers to Jesus's chin hairs being plucked out. We used to Celebrate Christmas, upon studying we realised that there is NOTHING Christian about Christmas.