Is the new world translation (NWT) of the bible credible?

Answer 1

No it is not credible.
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.
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.

Recommended Resource: Reasoning from the Scriptures with the New World Translation by Ron Rhodes.

Answer 2

Very much so. It matches very closely the oldest manuscripts of the Bible. There are errors in all translations due to the language, time and location of the translation be it KJV , DyV, ASTD, whatever.

The NWT brings the original message closer to our modern language than any other. What really twists the underwear of some is the putting back of the divine name where it was removed. Even in translations where it was removed, it is found in 4 places in the KJV, and in Psalms 83:18 in most translations. It makes sense that the Creator would have a personal name instead of just a title, God. It is Jehovah. Why, when He is talking, would He not use His own name? Our His people to not use his name? It just gives those against Him a severe "wedgie" to use that name. It was replaced over 6,000 times.

It is simpler to understand when you don't have to translate English from the 1600s to today's English. There are some simple minded who actually believe the Hebrew prophets spoke with "thees and thous" instead of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Try 1Corinthians 10:25 in the KJV. What is a "shambles"? If you lived in the 1600s England, you would know without a second thought. Now though, you scratch your head. In the NWT it is "meat market". That is the difference in the NWT and KJV in one sentence.

Answer 3

Jason David BeDuhn is the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins form Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana University, Bloomington.
(This prof. has done a complete review of the NWT, NT.)

"Atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate" may be what some call the NWT, but such a characterization is completely erroneous. Nearly every message I have received since the Watchtower article came out has claimed that "all reputable scholars," "every Greek or biblical scholar," etc. has condemned the NWT. It often sounds like people are getting this quote from the same source. But whatever the source, it is a lie. I have looked into the matter, and found almost no reviews of the NWT in academic journals. Most date from the 50s and 60s (the NWT has been improved since then). This kind of blanket condemnation of the NWT does not exist, for the most part because biblical scholars are far too busy to review WBTS publications which are considered outside of academic interest. It is simply something we don't pay attention to. I would welcome the names of any scholar who has written a review of the KIT or NWT; I am looking for these reviews, which seem few and far between.
For [this]characterization to be correct, [a critic] would have to point out places in the NWT where the translators deliberately give a false meaning for a word or phrase. Not a meaning within the range of possibility for the Greek, but something actually false and ungrammatical. Despite dozens of contacts in the last month, no one has yet supplied a single example which shows deliberate distortion (and I have checked many passages suggested to me).
The fact is that the NWT is what I call a "hyper-literal" translation, it sticks very close to the Greek, even making awkward English reading. There are a few places where the translators seem to have gone far out of their way, sometimes to clarify something suggested by the Greek, often for no apparent reason (maybe my ignorance of fine points of Witness theology prevents me from grasping what they are up to). And if you look at any other available translation, you will find similar instances where interpretation has been worked into the text in a way that stretches, if it does not violate the Greek. Every translation is biased towards the views of the people who made it. It is hard to judge who is right and who is wrong simply by comparing versions. You must go back to the Greek."

An interested person in Beduhn's comments as he asked;

"So, do I understand correctly that you are praising both the the word-for-word translation of the Watchtower Society directly below the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the New World Translation reproduced in the right column? In what ways is it "superior to the most successful translation in use today"?

BeDuhn answered:
"The interlinear is what I payed most attention to. Of course it is based on Westcott & Hort. One difference I noted is a very slavish word-for-word correspondence in the English words used to parallel the Greek. This is good. Most interlinears do a bit of interpretation already in selecting a variety of English words for one Greek word, depending on context. This interpretive move is bestleft for translations.

The problem with most available translations is that they are loose interpretations of the Greek. Many are actually paraphrases. The NRSV has made a major move in the direction of paraphrase even from the RSV, which already had a lot of problems of this kind. Also, many English words no longer mean what they did when first selected to translate the Greek, and so they have misleading or confusing connotations. The NWT is fresh, idiosyncratic English, forcing my students to grapple with the possible meaning. A good translation should not cover up problems in the text, but fully expose them to our search for understanding. The NWT allows this to happen, no matter what the Witnesses intended."

.

Answer 4

Yes, it is credible.
Yes, it is accurate.

Please note what one translator of the NIV said about his bible.

Why did the recently published “New International Version” (NIV) of the Bible fail to use the name of God where it appears about 7,000 times in ancient Bible manuscripts? In response to a person who inquired about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV’s committee wrote:

“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, ‘Yahweh is my shepherd.’ Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”


Even though the translators agreed with the NWT, they chose to ignore God's word for the sake of money

and Tradition.

.

Answer 5

No, I don't think so. It's not very commonly used because it has a different way of translating the bible, that's not totally accurate (I think by individual word, but I'm not sure)

The only two translations I would trust is the New King James Version and the New International Version (NIV).

I have an NIV because my church and all my friends like it the best, it's easier to understand, and supposedly has the most accurate translation (by sentence, I think, not sure)

Answer 6

My favorite is the KJ, but when I deep-search, I use all of the translations side by side . I don't think , I ever read the entire version of the NWT ,but I heard others on this forum saying, that some scripture is left out.

Answer 7

Yes,
The works of Westcott and Hort are in it.
It's also based a lot from the Sinaitic Manuscript and the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, and other manuscripts and Bibles older than the 4th century.

Answer 8

There are a lot of "liberties" with the translations designed to give support to their particular beliefs.


.

Answer 9

NO, it runs contrary to the word of God in the Holy Bible. absolutely not.

Answer 10

You people! You dont know when your talking to a christian!

I have never been a christian!

It was all an experiment in Hypocrisy!

And i won!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH