Can we trust the New World Translation?

Question

that is the jehovah's witness bible

Answer 1

The Watch Tower Society did NOT translate the Bible. They took the translation by Westcott & Hort, changed the bits they didn't like, then called it their own.

Only one of the five men responsible for the NWT had any adequate schooling or background to function as a critical Bible translator. Yet, in a Scottish Court of Sessions trial in November 1954, this man (Frederick W Franz) was unable to translate the Hebrew of Genesis 2:4 when invited to do so by an Attorney (Pursuer's Proof pp7, 102, 103).

Bruce Metzger, a biblical scholar with impecible credentials said "Jehovah's Witnesses have incorporated in their translation of the New Testament several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek." H.H. Rowley, Old Testament Hebrew scholar of Manchester University, England, said of the NWT (Genesis-Ruth, Vol 1 of the original Hebrew Scriptures series by the Watch Tower Society) - "The translators have their own views on Hebrew tenses... They profess to offer a rendering into modern English which is as faithful as possible. In fact, the jargon which they use is often scarcely English at all... the translation is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate an intelligent reader... it is an insult to the Word of God... From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." (Understanding pp 137-8).

Metzger's comments on the NWT (featured in Awake! To The Watchtower pp 176-8) which, at first sight, seem to approve and support the Society's translation, should be read IN FULL. This is the bit the Society DID NOT USE: "On the whole one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators...SOME OF THE TRANSLATIONS WHICH ARE SIMPLY INDEFENSIBLE... THE INTRODUCTION OF THE WORD 'JEHOVAH' INTO THE NEW TESTAMENT... JOHN 1:1... IS NOT JUSTIFIED DESPITE A LENGTHY NOTE... THE TRANSLATORS HAVE NOT HESITATED TO INSERT FOUR TIMES THE WORD 'OTHER' (TOTALLY WITHOUT WARRANT FROM THE GREEK)... IN COL 1:16f" (The Bible Translator Vol 15, 1964, pp 151-2). [Capital letters added by me for emphasis]

There's more, but you get the point. I just wish Jehovah's Witnesses would open their eyes and stop blindly believing whatever the Governing Body choose to tell them.

Answer 2

SIZE UP THE END TIME

KJV Bible 1611 after Christ published at 303 years to 1914 and WW1, Exo.6:3; 17:15; Judges 6:24; Psm.83:18; Isa.12:2; 26:4; Two or three bible
witnesses say Jehovah is correct, at 300 years as to law of land, that God
will abide by as well. The most important word in the world is known.
This is a challenging translation, but the bible does not have to be the best.
So why not study all that is available, if you study KJV bible well enough to know and correct all errors that should be there for you to do so, as it is just going to fall into place naturally, that is why the rule is [ two or three witnesses ], and 2Tim.2:15; Rightly divide the word to see what all the witnesses are saying on the subject Heb.11:1-40,12:1,2; 66 books and almost that many writers giving their witness. JESUS SAID IT'S THE WORD.

1961 after Christ NWT published plus 300 year, is 2261 and present year is 2007, the second coming of Christ will be before 2261, so that time applies to all translations after the KJV Bible, SO VITAL IS THAT 300 YEARS Dan.8:12-14 [ 2300 day years to WORD OF TRUTH CIRCULATING IN WORLD FOR END TIMES OR 1611 CE PLUS 606 BCE PLUS 83 IS 2300 ]: What was used before 1961 NWT but the KJV Bible from 1870 for 91 years, if people want to speak their own language, why not?

Day years of 2300, 2500, 2520, 2580 and [ it is now 2613 ], but last given is 2670 or less 2520 is 150 years for Michael in the last days from Rev.12:3,4,6-11,12; to 1Thes.4:15-17; and Rev.20:1-6,12,13; 1Cor.15:22-28,51-53;

All bible have the same thing.

Answer 3

To worship is to give obeisance. The words can be used interchangeably. "Worship" didn't always mean "worship" in the modern sense in English, but once meant giving obeisance. The change in the NWT reflects that. But the first edition of the NWT and the revision mean the same thing. Even before the revision, Watchtower articles said as much. Even some Trinitarian translations say "bow down," "give homage," or something similar in Hebrews 1:6. Why? Because in the Greek, the word "proskuneo" doesn't mean strictly "worship" in the modern sense, but was the act of bowing down, and showing deferential respect.

Answer 4

Have you compared it side by side with other translations?

Since the New World Translation wasn't available in complete form until after 1960, how do you explain all of those who became witnesses before then?

While the New World Translation may be the one used by the majority of witnesses, many are comfortable using ANY translation or version of the Bible.

Answer 5

The new translation is as riskey as the Greek translation of all current biblical works.

The JW's Bible is newer, but whayt might be the difference?

Answer 6

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

Because the NWT accurately translates God's name where the original manuscripts have it, in this respect the question should be: "Why are other Bibles NOT like the NWT?"

One of God’s Ten Commandments, for example commands:

"You shall not MISUSE the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who MISUSES his name." - Ex. 20:7, NJB [also NRSV, NIV, NEB, REB, GNB, CEV, NLV, ETRV].

Yet many other translations purposely omit God's name THOUSANDS OF TIMES when translating from the original texts, substituting it with "LORD" or "GOD".

Answer 7

According to Jason Beduhn, a famous theologist, it is a very accurate bible. My sister said she heard it was the answer to a question on Jeopardy, as being the most reliable bible.

I think many of the current bibles are not that reliable because the translations were flavored with the beliefs of the political parties of the times and the name and reference YHWH was removed from the 6,000 plus times it was in the original manuscripts. Now a 6,000 plus error is pretty serious. Therefore, any discrepancies in the NWT still puts it in the front running as being superior in that it restored the reference to the true God YHWH with a common recognizable name to again honor him.

To not reference a name for God is like sending my mail to Mrs. Woman at my address and then looking for a reply from me. I might do it one time, but after that, I would be insulted if you did not address me by my proper name. My name is misspelled often, I still recognize it as my name.

Edit: To Wondering Faith, keep wondering, because your reference to Barry Hofstetter is not substantial in that he is a pastor and as so would be unable to give an unbiased educated opinion, also, I don't see him listed in Wiki, like Dr. Beduhn who is well recognized.

Answer 8

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 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 9

Old Testament:
In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:
"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

New Testament:

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.

“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible:

King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation.

The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:

John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1

Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University

(Please note that according to Dr. Jason BeDuhn, only the NWT translated John 1:1 correctly)



*** w79 7/15 p. 27 Insight on the News ***
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.”

Concerning the NIV:

Bruce Metzger: (NIV) "It is surprising that translators who profess to have 'a high view of scripture" should take liberties with text by omitting words or, more often, by adding words that are not in the manuscripts."

edit ==========

Now why would a theologian not like what Dr. BeDuhn has to say about the bible?

Could the theologian's pay check be involved if Dr. BeDuhn is correct?

.

Answer 10

Make up your own mind.

John 1:1 - They mistranslate the verse as "a god." Again it is because they deny who Jesus is and must change the Bible to make it agree with their theology. The Jehovah's Witness version is this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Col. 1:15-17 - The word "other" is inserted 4 times. It is not in the original Greek, nor is it implied. This is a section where Jesus is described as being the creator of all things. Since the Jehovah's Witness organization believes that Jesus is created, they have inserted the word "other" to show that Jesus was before all "other" things, implying that He is created.

There are two Greek words for "other": heteros, and allos. The first means another of a different kind, and the second means another of the same kind. Neither is used at all in this section of scripture. The Jehovah's Witness have changed the Bible to make it fit their aberrant theology.

Heb. 1:6 - In this verse they translate the Greek word for worship, proskuneo, as "obeisance." Obeisance is a word that means to honor, show respect, even bow down before someone. Since Jesus, to them, is created, then he cannot be worshiped. They have also done this in other verses concerning Jesus, i.e., Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9.

Heb. 1:8 - This is a verse where God the Father is calling Jesus God: "But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.'" Since the Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with that they have changed the Bible, yet again, to agree with their theology. They have translated the verse as "...God is your throne..." The problem with the Jehovah's Witness translation is that this verse is a quote from Psalm 45:6 which, from the Hebrew, can only be translated as "...Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom." To justify their New Testament translation they actually changed the OT verse to agree with their theology, too!

My verdict: The NWT translation is not a good translation. It has changed the text to suit its own theological bias in many places.