Why do people say that the New World Translation is a bad translation?

Question

I have one in my library. Whenever I use it to compare verses, it is always consistent with my other translations and versions. I don’t understand why I so often hear people criticizing it, saying that Jehovah’s Witnesses have their own Bible. It’s like any other Bible translation.

Answer 1

Many people seek to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses by claiming "they have their own Bible", implying that we changed Scripture to suit our beliefs. This is simply not true. As all true Christians should, we base our beliefs on the Scriptures.

I thought this quote from the book "Truth in Translation" was interesting. The author, Jason Beduhn, is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

He wrote:

"While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said that the NWT 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. Both of these are translations produced by single denominations of Christianity. . . . "

"I have pondered why these two translations, of all those considered, turned out to be the least biased. I don't know the answer for certain. The reason might be different in each case. But, at the risk of greatly oversimplifying things, I think one common element the two denominations behind these translation share is the freedom from what I call the Protestant's Burden. . . ."

"You see, Protestant forms of Christianity, following the motto of sola scriptura, insist that all legitimate Christian beliefs (and practices) must be found in, or at least based on, the Bible. That's a very clear and admirable principle. The problem is that Protestant Christianity was not born in a historical vacuum, and does not go back directly to the time that the Bible was written. . . ."

"For the doctrines that Protestantism inherited to be considered true, they had to be found in the Bible. And precisely because they were considered true already, there was and is tremendous pressure to read those truths back into the Bible, whether or not they are actually there. . . ."

"Catholicism, while generally committed to the idea that what the Church believes can be proven by and is grounded in the Bible, maintains the view that Christian doctrine was developed, or brought to more precise clarity on key points, by the work of theologians over time. It is not necessary, from the Catholic point of view, to find every doctrine or practice explicitly spelled out in the Bible. . . ."

"The Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, are more similar to the Protestant in their view that the Bible alone must be the source of truth in its every detail. So you might expect translators from this sect to labor under the Protestant Burden. But they do not for the simple reason that the Jehovah's Witness movement was and is a more radical break with the dominant Christian tradition of the previous millennium than most kinds of Protestantism. This movement has, unlike the Protestant Reformation, really sought to re-invent Christianity from scratch. Whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing, you can probably understand that it resulted in the Jehovah's Witnesses approaching the Bible with a kind of innocence, and building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there."

Answer 2

I suppose the reasons are varied. I will tell you this however: it never ceases to amaze me how attached some are to a particular rendering of John 1:1. I mean, each and every time the Bible and Jehovah's Witnesses come up in the same subject line, John 1:1 is not far behind. This, despite the fact that there are at least three different Bible translations that render John 1:1 the same way and they all predate the New World Translation.

Curious. Curious, indeed. John 1:1 is adored while verse 18 is ignored.

Hannah J Paul

Answer 3

As for it's accuracy, the New World Translation has been found to be "one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available" and is "the most accurate of the [8 major] translations compared."—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona


As for John 1:1, look at the following NON JW translations:

(1) The New Testament in an Improved Version (Unitarian) says: "the Word was with God, and the Word was A god."

(2) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson (Christadelphian?) says in the interlinear section: "A god was the Word."

(3) The Four Gospels - A New Translation by Prof. Charles C. Torrey says: "the Word was with God, and the Word was god."

(4) Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Siegfried Shultz says: "and A god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word."

(5) Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Johannes Schneider says: "and godlike sort was the Logos [Word]."

(6) Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Jurgen Becker says: "and A god was the Logos."

In reality, there is no such teaching of a triune God in the Bible. Trinitarins only pick and choose several scriptures (like John 1:1) that is attempted to be interpreted as such.

To see why John 1:1c should be rendered "a god":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JWquestions-and_answers/message/663

Info about the trinity:

http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050422/article_02.htm

Answer 4

There are quite a few verses and chapters that have been omitted from the NT. Also, as many others have stated, it has not been correctly translated from the Greek. Our Pastor showed us a NWT, an NIV, and an RSV. The last two are very similar and read quite the same, but the NWT reads totally different in some areas. We were all stunned when he showed us key areas.
He also invites Witnesses to come in and talk, but only under the condition that they use his Bible, not theirs. He said many of the young JW's are shocked at what they read. And usually that is when the older JW accompanying them will drag them out of the manse.

Answer 5

It denies the Deity of JesusCrist. One of their mistakes or common confusion is in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language. And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 **‘the Word was with God’** clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase **‘and the Word was God’** to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1. So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.
(For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’, by Daniel Wallace. He includes fifty pages - entitled ‘The Article, Part I’ - which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article. He actually has a ‘Part II’ which discusses some special issues with the article. Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1. It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)

Answer 6

what do you compare it with? when i compare the authorised version with the greek original of the new testament i am regularly shocked by just how transparently and deliberately dishonest the english is to the greek.

my preferred english translation of the new testament remains the douai: it may be incompetent, but it seems to have less of a built-in agenda.

but really i don't know any good translations of the new testament into english.

Answer 7

The New World Translation (NWT) is defined by the Jehovah's Witnesses’ parent organization (The Watchtower Society) as "a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah." The NWT is the anonymous work of the “New World Bible Translation Committee.” Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the anonymity is in place so that the credit for the work will go to God. Of course this has the added benefit of keeping the translators from any accountability for their errors, and prevents real scholars from checking their academic credentials.

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. Following are some of the more prominent examples of intentional revisions:

The New World Translation renders the Greek term word "staurós" ("cross") as "torture stake" because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross. The New World Translation does not translate the Greek words “sheol,” "hades,” "gehenna," and "tartarus," as "hell” because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in hell. The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of “coming” for the Greek word “parousia” because JW’s believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900’s). In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word “other” despite it being completely absent from the original Greek text. It does this to give the view that “all other things” were created by Christ, instead of what the text says, “all things were created by Christ.”

The most well known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1. The original Greek text reads, “the Word was God.” The NWT renders it has “the word was a god.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English - "a" or "an"). So any use of an indefinite article in the English translation must be added in by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable in English, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.

There is a perfectly good explanation for why "theos" has no definite article in John 1:1 that does not result in the New World Translation rendering. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why:

1. In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Predicate. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to, "The dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word's function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word's root. In this verse, there are two case endings for the root "theo" . . . one is "s" (theos), the other is "n" (theon). The "s" ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the "n" ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.

2. When a noun is functioning as a predicate nominative (in English a noun that follows a "being" verb such as "is") its case ending must match the noun's case that it modifies, so that the reader will know which noun it is describing. Therefore, "theo" must take the "s" ending because it is modifying "logos." Therefore, John 1:1 transliterates to: "kai theos en ho logos." Is "theos" the subject or is "logos"? Both have the "s" ending. The answer is found in the next rule.

3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case endings, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on "logos" (the Word) instead of "theos." So "logos" is the subject, and "theos" is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as: "and the Word was God," (instead of "and God was the word").

The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word “theon” occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these occurrence as “a god.” Just 3 verses after John 1:1, the New World Translation translates another case of "theos" without the indefinite article as "God." Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.

The Watchtower, therefore, has no hard textual grounds for their translation - only their own theological bias. While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have done, they cannot show that it is the proper translation. Nor can they explain the fact that that the NWT does not translate the exact same Greek phrases elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way. It is only the pre-conceived heretical rejection of the deity of Christ that forces the Watchtower Society to inconsistently translate the Greek text, thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy to those ignorant of the facts.

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 8

Prejudice and ignorance are the 2 main reasons. Those who are ignorant to the truth about the NWT are great at going to anti-witness websites so they can copy-and -paste misinformation about the NWT. Most of them have never even read a NWT.

Answer 9

Like you I have a NWT bible in my library. I compare it to approved translations. This is why it's a bad translation. Look at this example.

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. John 1:1 NWT

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 NKJV

The letter "a" is added in the NWT version.

If the NWT is like any other translation, then why isn't it approved by Greek scholars?

Joannes Greber helped translate it. He was an occultist and he got his messages from spirit beings.

You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deut. 4:2

Answer 10

No its not...You are not seeing the very important scripture changes...They are there..and there are many.

They use ONE scholar that agrees with their translation..Here is what the scholars really say about their translation..

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#BeDuhn


Also, they fail to mention the Catholic Priest that they quoted in their WT for well over 20 years..This priest also had his translation of the Bible..He translated John 1:1 the same as the NWT..He obtained his information on how to translate this scripture from a spirit that talked through a boy..this spirit told him that John 1:1 should say .."a god"..why would a spirit want that translated that way? Think about it..
Read the full story for yourself..its quite interesting..

http://www.premier1.net/~raines/greber.html