Am I reading the wrong version of the Bible?

Question

New World Translation.....What makes this wrong? What makes any version right?

Answer 1

"New World Translation" should be a part of ANY bible student's theocratic library. About 8 million NWT bibles are distributed each year; more than 145 million copies of "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" have been distributed since the 1960's, 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


True bible students (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) recognize the advantages of using more than one translation of the bible during one's personal study. Since no current translation is perfect, it makes sense to compare multiple translations and even study the reasons why particular phrases are translated differently by different translation teams.

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.

The "New World Translation Committee" which oversaw the translation work request anonymity 'en perpetuity', and are likely all dead since the primary work was completed 45 years ago. Guesses at specific names have always been merely guesses. 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 shaky 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 significant 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/e/20000622/
http://watchtower.org/e/pr/index.htm?article=article_04.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/na/
http://watchtower.org/e/20020915/article_01.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20050715/article_02.htm

Answer 2

No it is not wrong. The King James version was a translation just like the rest. It still being in "old English" can make it very hard to understand for some people. They are all god's word, and while some versions have been tainted, by comparing a few copies when something doesn't make sense it can help you to get the true point. My personal preference is the New World's Translation, but I do use a few other versions when trying to make a point clearer to someone. The bottom line is they are all translated from ancient languages, and while many people get hung up on using the KJ version, there is no "biblical" basis for it being superior or anything else. I'd do some research of which translations have the translated from the original text the most correctly and use one of those. I hope that helps, and I commend you on seeing the value in Bible Reading! (2 Timothy 3:16) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,

Answer 3

The New World Translation is one of the better translations available. People who disagree with this assessment usually do so from their own theological biases and presuppositions.

A neutral Bible scholar and historian, who is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, is professor Jason David BeDuhn of Northern Arizona University. In 2003 he published a book titled "Truth in Translation." He surveyed a number of popular translations, including the King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, and the New World Translation.

What was his conclusion? "The N(ew) W(orld) Translation emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared. Holding a close second to the NWT in its accuracy, judging by the passages we have looked at, is the NAB." (page 163)

This is the assessment of an objective scholar who is neither pro-JW nor anti-JW. He has high regard for the New World Translation, with no doctrinal reasons for doing so, only his honest scholarship.

I am able to read the Bible apart from translations, since over the past 30 years I have studied and learned the original Bible languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as well as Coptic.

On the basis of my own informed judgment, I can say that no *translation* perfectly conveys all the nuances of the original texts. But we would find it combersome and confusing to read a translation that brought out everything a text might say.
So, translators have to make judgment calls and give the best, most accurate and readable translation that they can.

I have found some translations more poetic or contemporary than the New World Translation, but I have not found any that are more accurate or faithful to the original texts.

I would also have to say that it is untrue that the translators of the NWT made their version to conform to the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses. Those doctrines were taught for many years from other versions: the King James Version, the American Standard Version, Rotherham, Emphatic Diaglott, and others. Witnesses do not need the New World Translation, specifically, to teach the truth. But plain, clear language makes it shine brightly.

The truth can be found in any translation, and you will find many different Bible translations used and quoted in the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Answer 4

there are a few good translations that, when compared to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages from which they were translated, stand up very close in accuracy. The NWT is one of the more accurate. Other good ones are;

Today's English Version

The Living Bible (though it also includes the apocrypha)

The Bible in Living English

The (old) American Standard Version is pretty accurate as well but it is in old English

The version of the Bible with the most deviation from the original languages is the King James Version. In the King James Version you will find references to "unicorns" and 1 John 5:7, 8 has a bunch of words added to support a certain doctrine. None of the oldest manuscripts that archaeologists have today include those words that were added to the KJV, so steer clear of it and its "unicorns"

http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx88.htm

There is a way of showing from the KJV itself that the translation of the Hebrew re’em as ‘unicorn’ is incorrect. In Deuteronomy 33:17, Moses speaks a blessing on the descendants of Joseph, saying, ‘In majesty he is like a firstborn bull; his horns are like the horns of a wild ox (Heb: re’em). With them he will push the peoples …’.

The KJV translation says: ‘His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people … .’

The simile is appropriate if the reference is to the aurochs or wild ox, because they had huge, long horns. However, the main point here is the dilemma for the KJV translators who had elsewhere determined that the re’em was a unicorn.

In the Hebrew of this passage, the word ‘horns’ is plural, but the word re’em is singular. But if they translated it this way, it would read, ‘His horns are like the horns of a unicorn’, which would give a unicorn more than one horn, obviously a contradiction in terms. The KJV translators clearly recognized the inconsistency in comparing the pair of horns (plural) on a bull with the single horn on a unicorn, because they took the liberty in their translation to make the unicorn plural (see the marginal note in the KJV, which makes this clear). However, it needs to be stressed again that the word is not plural in the Hebrew. Unless one grants an English translation authority over the original Hebrew, this is a once-and-for-all indication that the re’em could not be a one-horned creature.

Note that in Modern Hebrew, re’em also means wild ox.

Answer 5

The New World Translation is unique in one thing – it is the first intentional systematic effort at producing a complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group's doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watchtower Society realized that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. So, rather than conforming their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs. The “New World Bible Translation Committee” went through the Bible and changed any Scripture that did not agree with Jehovah’s Witness’ theology. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that as new editions to the New World Translation were published, additional changes were made to the Biblical text. As Biblical Christians continued to point out Scriptures that clearly argue for the deity of Christ (for example), the Watchtower Society would publish a new edition of the New World Translation with those Scriptures changed.

It is only the Watchtower's pre-conceived heretical beliefs that is behind the dishonest and inconsistent translation that is the New World Translation. The New World Translation is most definitely not a valid version of God’s Word. There are differences between all the major English translations of the Bible. No English translation is perfect. However, while other Bible translators make minor mistakes in the rendering of the Hebrew and Greek text into English; the NWT intentionally changes the rendering of the text to conform to Jehovah’s Witness’ theology. The New World Translation is a perversion, not a version, of the Bible.

Answer 6

I read the "King James Bible". My church believes it to be the closest to the original and the most correctly translated. Over the many years, other churches have changed the wording and meaning of some of the scriptures. For the most part, they all "sort of" say the same thing. But they are different. Now granted, everyone reads and understands the text differently but no one should change the text of the scriptures just so it fits better with their lives or culture or for whatever reason.

I suggest that you pray about it. Ponder in your heart which one is the right one to go with. And then choose. There is a lot of good in this world.

Answer 7

Your bible has been edited by the watchtower society. It contains some critical errors from the original Hebrew and Greek texts. It was released in 1950 by the Jehovah's Witnesses and certain verses have been changed to reflect the teachings of their cult. Please get a King James version or New international version and study the major differences in the scripture texts. You will see the problems that version can cause.

Answer 8

Hi

If you genuinely want to know if it is the right version the answer is no. There is no correct bible anymore. The bible has been revised, added to, taken away from and broken down way too many times to find a copy of the actual bible. I have a friend at college who is in the same situation as you. She doesn't know which bible to believe in anymore because there are numerous versions of the bible. Maybe the link in the sourcebox can help you.

Good luck :)

Answer 9

I do not know about this bible. I read King James, and new living bible. If new world is simply a translation, there should not be a problem because it is translated into simpler terms or somehting easier to understand. It should be ok

Answer 10

I use the NIV. What makes a version incorrect, is when it becomes someone's interpretation of the bible rather than the original text. The Message is someone's interpretation of the bible, which to me makes it "incorrect". The American Standard is actually the closest translation there is to the original text.