Of courese the NWT prides itself on restoring the devine name. The Hebrew YHWH has long been recognised in English as Jehovhah. There is no letter "J" in Hebrew and the tradition is to render ALL Hebrew names beginning with "Y" into English with "J" such as Jonah, Jerusalem, Jericho, Judah.
The King jmanes Bible uses only one type of old manuscripts the Textus Receptus . The NWT referes to as many manuscripts as possible including the Textus Receptus
Sources for the Text of the New World Translation—Christian Greek Scriptures
Original Greek Writings and Early Copies
Armenian Version
Coptic Versions
Syriac Versions—Curetonian, Philoxenian, Harclean,
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
Old Latin
Latin Vulgate
Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri—(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,
P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.—Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (א),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
As to which ancient texts are corrupt is a major discussion. Today, only KJV only adherents will stay by the Textus Receptus / Received Texts or Majority Texts. All other major Bible scholars say that these texts are flawed.
Most translators (except for KJV only people) will use the following criteria in determining the value of a master Greek text.
1. The older reading is to be preferred. (This rule assumes that the closer the manuscript is to the autograph the more likely it is to be correct.)
2. The more difficult reading is to be preferred over the easier reading. (This is based on the tendency to simplify difficult words or phrases in the process of copying.)
3. The shorter reading is to be preferred over the longer reading. (Copyists tended to add material to make the text easier to understand. Of course this rule does not apply if there is evidence of an error, such as described above, that results in the loss of text.)
4. The reading that explains all the variants is most likely the original one.
5. The reading with the widest geographical support is to be preferred over one that predominates only within a single region or single manuscript.
6. The reading that most closely conforms to the style, diction, or viewpoint of the author in the rest of the book is to be preferred. (Of course, critics often disagree on which variant best fits this criteria.)
7. A reading that displays no doctrinal bias on the part of the copyist is to be preferred over one that betrays a partisan bias.
The King James Bible was based on what is called the Byzantine texts named after the locality where they were found, the Byzantine empire. This was centered around what we now call Istanbul.
In 1516 the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus published his first edition of a master Greek text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It contained many errors, but an improved text was made available through four succeeding editions from 1519 to 1535. Later, Paris printer and editor Robert Estienne, or Stephanus, issued several editions of the Greek “New Testament,” based principally on Erasmus’ text, but having corrections according to the Complutensian Polyglott (edition of 1522) and 15 late manuscripts. The third edition of Stephanus’ Greek text (issued in 1550) became, in effect, the “Received Text” (called textus receptus in Latin), which was used for many early English versions, including the King James Version of 1611.
They are called the Majority Texts because at the time they were hastily put together by Erasmus,due to the pressure of his publisher to bring their edition to market before the competing Complutensian Polyglot, these wwre the majority of texts that they had dating from the twelve centry and from one region only, the Byzantine empire.
The Textus Receptus. If the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad is taken to be the standard for the Byzantine text-type, then The Textus Receptus differs from this in 1,838 Greek readings, of which 1,005 represent "translatable" differences
There are over 5,300 surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. These range from small fragments to almost the entire New Testament. The earliest of these manuscripts are known as papyri because they are written on papyrus. The papyri are from the second and third centuries. Some of them are listed below:
P87(3), containing a few verses of Philemon, (c. 125)
P77, containing a few verses of Matthew 23, ( c. 150)
P45, (the Chester Beatty Papyrus 1), containing portions of all Gospels and Acts, (c. 150)
P32, containing portions of Titus, (c 175)
P90, containing a portion of John 18, (c. 150)
P52, containing a few verses of John 18, (c. 150, many scholars date it c. 125)
P4/64/67, containing portions of Matthew and Luke, (c. 200; grouped together because they are
now considered parts of the same manuscript)
P1, containing Matthew 1, (c. 200)
P13, containing Hebrews 2-5, 10-12, (c. 200)
P27, containing a portion of Romans 8, (c. 200)
P66, containing most of John, (c. 175, although some scholars have dated c. 125-150)
P75, containing most of Luke and John (c. 200)
P46, containing all of Paul's letters except the Pastorals. (traditionally dated c. 200) In 1988
Young Kyu Kim published an article proposing a date prior to the reign of Domitian (A.D.
81-96). In The Origin of the Bible, New Testament scholar Philip W. Comfort argues that even
if this date is not true then at least it provides a convincing argument to push the date back at maybe A.D.150.
In addition to the above listing, there are 33 papyri from the 3rd century.
The other major group of early manuscripts are known as uncials, because of the style of writing
(a Greek handwriting similar to printing with all capitals in English). Some uncial fragments are
dated as early as 250, but the most significant to the textual critic are from the fourth through
sixth centuries. Some of the more important ones are:
Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter Aleph), containing the whole New Testament, (c.350)
Codex Vaticanus (designated B), containing almost the whole New Testament, (c. 325)
Codex Alexandrinus (designated A), containing most of the New Testament (5th century)
Codex Bezae (designated D), containing the Gospels and Acts (6th century)
Codex Claromotanus (designated DPAUL), containing the Pauline epistles and Hebrews (6th
century)
Codex Freerianius, or Washingtonensis (designated W), containing the New Testament (4th or
5th century)
Now, the scholars who say that the Textus Receptus / majority Texts are more accurate say that the other texts OMITS many passages and words.
The scholars that prefer the other texts will argue that the Majority Text has INSERTS many passages and words. That is why the debate is a big one. Most lists that put the Bibles in the categories of best to worst will put the KJV at the bottom. The NWT scores at the top along with the “ 21st Century NT” and “Goodspeed’s “.
The rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16 as per the KJV “God was manifest in the flesh,” is considered by most scholars to be in accurate. Notre just what one respected scholar says. “Robertson’s NT Word Pictures” says of this verse “He who (ov). The correct text, not yeov (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus (Syrian text) nor o (neuter relative, agreeing with musthrion) the reading of the Western documents. Westcott and Hort print this relative clause as a fragment of a Christian hymn (like #Eph 5:14) in six strophes. That is probably correct. At any rate ov (who) is correct and there is asyndeton (no connective) in the verbs. Christ, to whom ov refers, is the mystery (#Col 1:27; 2:2). “
Comments
Please post the link to the article that you referenced in your first paragraph.
by Texasescimo on November 17th, 2010
There are also many Scholars who would say the NWT is not accurate.
Same with the KJV, many say it is accurate, many say it's not.
That doesn't mean anything.
We can never have a flawless translation.
That's why it's important to let God guide you through is holy spirit into the truth..right?
by Strength on November 22nd, 2010
Tex...I don't have a link. This is the article. I posted it on answerbag before, but I don't know how to transfer that link over here.
ON August 2 the Watchtower Society released the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. The very next day the Toronto Daily Star published on page one the following:
“UNWARRANTED LIBERTY, SAY CLERGY OF WITNESS BIBLE
“Several clergymen and students of the Bible said today Jehovah’s witnesses have taken unwarranted liberties in rejecting the idea of the Holy Trinity in a new translation of the Greek scriptures comprising the New Testament. Revealed yesterday, the version substitutes the words ‘the spirit and the water and the blood’ for the phrase ‘Father, Son and Holy Ghost’. The latter translation is found frequently throughout the King James version of the New Testament, used by orthodox churches.”
These critical clergymen are poorly informed, and in their haste to strive they open themselves to shame. They should have heeded the proverb: “Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame.” (Prov. 25:8)
Informed Bible students know that the phrase “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” is not found once in the King James Version. Found once is the phrase “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost”, at 1 John 5:7. And what about the phrase “the spirit and the water and the blood”? Is it a substitution for the other phrase? No; those identical words appear in both the King James Version and the New World Translation, at 1 John 5:8. What the New World Translation did was merely drop the King James Version phrase at 1 John 5:7: “The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
Well, was that an “unwarranted liberty”? The critical clergymen thought so, for the press report continued: “Prof. B. W. Horan, Wycliffe College Bible authority, said the translation approved by the Watch Tower and Bible Society—official name of the Witnesses—can have no factual basis. He added: ‘The words “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” are clear in the original Greek, our only authority, and are thus translated in all English versions. They are taking an unwarranted liberty, and once you do that sort of thing you can get almost anything out of the scriptures. They have no warrant at all for their interpretation.’ Officials of the Anglican, United, Baptist, Presbyterian and Christian Science Churches agreed with Prof. Horan.”
How can Horan be a “Bible authority” for Wycliffe College, and yet say this phrase is in the original Greek and is translated “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” in “all English versions”? The Greek originals were written in the first century of our common era, but it was not until the sixteenth century that these spurious words crept into a Greek manuscript.
In 1516 Erasmus produced a Greek “New Testament” text. He brought out several editions, and the first two did not contain the spurious words at 1 John 5:7. However, the omission of this forged text was noted by Catholic authorities, particularly by Stunica, and through subsequent contriving Stunica prevailed upon Erasmus to insert it in a later edition, against the better judgment of Erasmus.
William Tyndale used this Erasmus later edition to revise his English translation, and it is this Tyndale version that is the basis of the popular King James Version of 1611. Thus we see how 1 John 5:7, never in the original Greek Scriptures, wormed its way into the King James Version.
And what about Horan’s claim that this spurious trinitarian text is in “all English versions”? It is extremely difficult to believe he is so ignorant of the facts, yet that belief is perhaps more charitable than to think he deliberately falsifies. In 1881 there was published a revision of the “New Testament” of the King James Version, called the “English Revised Version”. It omitted the spuriou
by vew573 on November 22nd, 2010
Yes Strength as well as checking the scriptures closely as to what is being said and seeing how all of the scriptures agree.
(Acts 17:11) Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes‧sa‧lo‧ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.
(2 Timothy 3:16) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,
Vew573, thank you for posting that. The rest appears to have been cut off. If you have a link, you can highlight the address in your browser at the top and right click and then copy and then paste it into an answer. Don't know if that is what you did not know how to do or something else. Please post the rest of the article though.
by Texasescimo on November 22nd, 2010
Quote."There are also many Scholars who would say the NWT is not accurate.
Same with the KJV, many say it is accurate, many say it's not.
That doesn't mean anything.
We can never have a flawless translation.
That's why it's important to let God guide you through is holy spirit into the truth..right?" Strength.
Of course your right Strength. Just the translating information from one language to another presents some problems...as I'm sure your aware. I have a King James and this is the Bible my Bible study uses. I certainly would never say that one cannot learn about Jehovah using the K.J. In fact, before the N.W.T. I used Primarily the King James and the American Standard version...I liked the American Standard Version because it uses God's name instead of titles like LORD Or GOD.
And yes, there are many scholars that will also say that the NWT is not accurate.
I am just surprised that so many speak our in favor of it...They are certainly not seeking to be popular.
I agree also that one definately needs the help of God's Spirit. I try to remember to ask for it before doing my studying.
by vew573 on November 22nd, 2010
Thanks Tex...I should have known that...Next time I will try it.
Here's the rest of that post.
And what about Horan’s claim that this spurious trinitarian text is in “all English versions”? It is extremely difficult to believe he is so ignorant of the facts, yet that belief is perhaps more charitable than to think he deliberately falsifies. In 1881 there was published a revision of the “New Testament” of the King James Version, called the “English Revised Version”. It omitted the spurious text 1 John 5:7, as had Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott version a few years earlier. Almost invariably modern versions in English omit it.
The American Standard Version of 1901 did. When the Greek Scriptures of this version were revised and published in 1946, the spurious text was still missing. It is likewise omitted in Moffatt’s modern translation (1922), in An American Translation by Goodspeed (1935), in The New Testament in Basic English (1941), in Darby’s version (1949), in Weymouth’s version (fifth edition, 1929), in the Twentieth Century New Testament (1901), in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible (1897), and so on through practically all modern English versions.
The Baptist cleric, J.B. McLaurin, that protested against the New World Translation should have known that the American Baptist Publication Society copyrighted and published in 1924 a modern version of the Greek Scriptures, in which they omitted the spurious verse. (The other hasty critics of the New World Translation were D. B. Rogers, Church of England, F. W. Boorer, Christian Scientist, V. T. Mooney, United Church, and J. A. Munro, Presbyterian church.)
Catholic Monsignor Knox completed a translation in 1943, and while including the spurious text admitted in a footnote: “This verse does not occur in any good Greek manuscript.” The Catholic Confraternity translation explained that it retained the text because the Holy See reserved to itself the right to pass on the text, but did admit that according to the evidence of many manuscripts the verse was spurious.
The fact is that every informed clergyman knows that the words of 1 John 5:7, as in the King James Version, are not found in the most reliable Greek Scripture manuscripts, namely, the Vatican 1209, the Sinaitic, and the Alexandrine. The Greek text used as the basis of the New World Translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881), by reason of its admitted excellence. It does not contain the spurious words at 1 John 5:7.
In view of all this, what do we conclude? That the New World Translation did not take any unwarranted liberties, but that these clergymen voiced unwarranted criticism, and in their haste to do so have demonstrated ignorance or prejudice, or both, to their shame.
He that is hasty of spirit exalteth folly. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.—Prov. 14:29; 18:13.
by vew573 on November 22nd, 2010
Is the asv meant to be the most accurate version, or would you say the nwt is?
if there was a scale 1 to 100 , 1 being the most accurate, where would you put the kjv? and where would the nwt and asv go, roughly. I'm just interested to know what you think. :) It would be kinda cool if I could find on the internet some kind of scale line with all the bibles in it and then all their errors and positives. It would take a lot of time to study through but it's so interesting to me. Maybe I will do it myself one day! :-D
by Strength on November 23rd, 2010
From a 2004 Watchtower:
[A “Remarkably Good” Translation
ACCORDING to one count, as many as 55 new English translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were published between 1952 and 1990. Translators’ choices mean that no two read alike. In order to assess the reliability of the translators’ work, Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona, U.S.A., examined and compared for accuracy eight major translations, including the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The result?
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.
BeDuhn noted, too, that many translators were subject to pressure “to paraphrase or expand on what the Bible does say in the direction of what modern readers want and need it to say.” On the other hand, the New World Translation is different, observed BeDuhn, because of “the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”
As the New World Bible Translation Committee acknowledges in the foreword to its work, it is “a very responsible thing” to translate the Holy Scriptures from their original languages into modern speech. The Committee goes on to say: “The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible.”
Since its first publication in 1961, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures has been made available in 32 languages plus 2 Braille editions. The Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation, or the “New Testament,” is available in an additional 18 languages plus one Braille edition. We invite you to read God’s Word in this modern and “remarkably good” translation, perhaps in your own language.]
by Texasescimo on November 23rd, 2010
Thanks Tex. I'm not in any way dissing the nwt, i did think though that just because one man- BeDuhn says it was a remarkably good translation doesn't mean it is. There's also many who would back the kjv and say it is by far the best. :)
by Strength on November 25th, 2010
Yes, many back the KJV, in fact there are many more that back the KJV than there are that back the NWT. Other than JW's, none of those scholars have a reason to be biased for the NWT, yet some still acknowledge that it is a good translation. Many of the ones mentioned by vew573 actually have reason to be biased against the NWT. The Vatican 1209 and the Sinaitic manuscript both from the 4th century support the NWT.
by Texasescimo on November 27th, 2010
Hello Strength, here are a couple of websites that sort of rank translations. The first one ranks the NWT as a 2, which is the best ranking that they give to a translation that is not an interlinear. I believe there is a note complaining about the NWT not making Jesus God or something like that.
The second website does not include the NWT.
http://bible.ovu.edu/terry/interpretation/translat.htm
English Bible Translations
(rated on a scale of 1 to 10 as to literalness)
Chart of Bibles from "word for word" to "thought for thought" (paraphrase)
http://www.zondervan.com/images/cms/Bibles/bible_transchrt_js.jpg
Read more: The Bible has been translated and edited many times. Why hasn't it been edited and translated, so that any one that can read can understand it? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/10904933#ixzz1TIlNU5Kg
by Texasescimo on July 27th, 2011
Thanks for this Teximo.
by Strength on July 27th, 2011
Compare these verses in the KJV to older manuscripts or to modern translations based on older manuscripts and you can see what has been altered in trying to prove the trinity:
1 John 5:7-8 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
John 3:13 (KJV) And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven
Colossians 2:2 (KJV) That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
John 1:18 (KJV) No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:7-8;1%20Timothy%203:16;John%203:13;Colossians%202:2;John%201:18&version=NASB;HCSB;NKJV;NLT;NIV1984
Acts 3:26 (KJV) Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
1Peter 3:15 (KJV) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Revelation 1:11 (KJV) Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Revelation 3:2 (KJV) Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before (“my” removed) God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%203:26;1pet3:15;Rev%201:11,%20Rev%203:2&version=NASB;HCSB;NKJV;NLT;NIV1984
by Texasescimo on November 21st, 2011
Yep, this is true. Thanks for sharing the info.
by Strength on November 21st, 2011
You're welcome!
by Texasescimo on November 21st, 2011