Is there a significant difference between The king James and New World testament versions of the bible?

Question

My last question was in reference to the JW faith. Allot of people responded by saying that the JW founder twisted the words in the NWT to fit his personal ideology.

Is there any truth to this? Aside from that what are the differences? What do scholars and theologians think about the NWT version?

Answer 1

dooder's comparison is accurate, but not his reasoning. It is not accurate to say that the word "a" was "added" in the New World Translation (NWT), and the use of a lower case "g" for god in this instance is *not* a mistaken translation. In other words, strictly from an *accuracy of translation of the words* point of view, "a god" is no less accurate than "God".

Now, for your question: there *is* a significant difference between the King James Version (KJV) and the NWT. The founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) was dead for decades before the creation of the NWT. Nevertheless, the NWT *does* show significant JW bias in many particulars of the translation strategy. Fortunately, most of these are explained quite clearly in the translation itself.

Here is my review of the NWT http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/nwt.htm

The primary differences are these:
NWT uses more authentic sources than KJV
NWT uses more modern ancient languages scholarship (i.e. better) than KJV
NWT uses modern English
NWT shows a very definite JW bias in the method of translation (which is *not* the same as inaccuracy of translation)

Personally, I find the NWT it a *useful* translation, but as noted in my review, the reader needs to be aware of the JW bias present in the translation. So far, I am aware of only 1 passage that someone has brought to my attention that can be reasonably claimed to have been translated inaccurately. Not being an ancient languages scholar myself, I cannot verify the validity of this claim, but it *does* seem suspicious. The passage is Col 1:15-18, where the word "other" is inserted 4 times (and duly indicated in the text). All other "suspect" passages that have been brought to my attention I have ascertained to have an accurate translation (which, understand, is not necessarily the same as the *correct* translation!). There is also, of course, the not-entirely-justified insertion of "Jehovah" in places where it does not appear in the original text. This is well documented within the NWT itself.

The KJV I also find to be a useful translation, but not for the same reasons as the NWT. I find the NWT useful as a study bible (useful translation notes), particularly in tandem with another study bible, but the KJV is best when used in discussions with KJV users - of which there are many. Actually, the original KJV itself has some quite useful translation notes (alternate translations of numerous ambiguous passages provided in the margins). However, nearly all modern KJV exclude these notes, and abridge a large portion of the translation as well (several books are usually omitted from modern KJV editions).

If I had to make a choice between the two, lacking all other versions, I would choose KJV because I feel that it displays less bias. However, given that other versions are available to us, and that I am fully aware of the bias in the NWT, I would favor it as a more accurate translation, using superior modern scholarship and superior source texts in comparison to the KJV.

If you insist on using a KJV, here are the editions I recommend:

KJV (Paragraph) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FKJV-Cambridge-Paragraph-Bible-Apocrypha%2Fdp%2F0521843863%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044700%26sr%3D1-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
A scholarly effort to duplicate the original KJV *translation* (as opposed to any particular printing). Spelling is modernized (not the wording) and the complete contents of the original translation is here, including the excellent marginal notes.

KJV (Oxford) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FBible-Authorized-James-Version-Apocrypha%2Fdp%2F0192835254%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1190233697%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
Similar to the above, this edition lacks only the marginal notes and is much cheaper (and paperback). It is pretty well-put-together for a paperback.

KJV 1611 - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FHoly-Bible-King-James-Version%2Fdp%2F1565631609%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044819%26sr%3D1-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
This is a "replica" of the original 1611 printing. Each word on each page is in precisely the same position as in that original printing. It also includes the excellent marginal notes. The *spelling* in this edition is also identical to the original, and at 1st will cause readers some difficulty (but only at 1st). Once you have mastered the transposition of u and v, and of i and j, you will likely find it just as easy to read as an Oxford Revision KJV. Fortunately, this edition does not use the original Germanic lettering of the original, and instead uses the Roman lettering to which we are all accustomed. Possibly the best bible to use when discussing scripture with a KJV-only Christian, as this is about as close as you can get for under $100 to the *actual* *original* KJV. It is also quite reasonably priced.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 2

The Jewish Bible, the Catholic Bible, the Protestant Bible and "other" Bibles are significantly different from each other. Also, there are over 50 other different versions of the Bible in English alone, all claiming to be the one true Bible of the Word of God! The original Bible has been manipulated to suit different Christian Denominations. Many have deleted certain Scriptures.(for example the KJV) Others have added their own. The New World Translation Bible should be avoided because it is actually corrupt, being a sectarian paraphrase rather than a true translation of the Holy Scriptures. Of course, the Christians who use these Bibles will not admit they have been "doctored".

Answer 3

The only difference between the KJV and the NWT is that the NWT is more accurate.

How accurate is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures:

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)

You can find "scholars" for and against the NWT, but you will notice, if a scholar is a strong believer of the trinity, they will slander the NWT.

An interest scripture trinitarians point to is John 1:1 in the NWT.

Yet notice how this verse was translated, not by Greek scholars, but by people who actually spoke the language the NT is written in.

A Fairly Literal English Translation of the Coptic Text:

1 In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was in the presence of God, and the Word was a god.

You can read the NWT online at:

and judge for yourself.

.

Answer 4

Each time someone decides to "update" the Bible, they are modifying it to fit more closely to how they view the world. Don't ever believe that this doesn't happen because even bible scholars who work for the Vatican will say this is the case. Part of it has to do with the fact that some of the earliest versions of the Bible made use of phrases and terms that don't have any direct corollary to modrn forms of English, so that leaves "spots" where the new edition can have the choice of terminology inserted.
This can be verified online, but you'll have to look for it. trust me, it's there.

Answer 5

Yes there is. For instance in the book of John in the kjv the scripure reads "In the begining was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God." The NWT says "In the begining was the word and the word was with God and the word was 'a god'. Notice they add the letter "a" and also spell god using a lower case "g".