Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / Religions
  5. / Religions A - Z
  6. / Christian Religions
  7. / Christian Denominations
  8. / Jehovah's Witnesses
  9. / Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible

by Anonymous on October 23rd, 2005

Anonymous

Question

Help answer this question below.

Which parts of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, used by the Jehovah's Witnesses, are thought to be inaccurate?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. 13 helpful answers below.

  • by TulsaDavid on October 23rd, 2005

    TulsaDavid

    Several parts are inaccurate.

    This translation replaces the use of the word LORD with the word JEHOVAH in the New Testament. The New World translators use the Septuagint as one of their justifications. Let me explain.

    The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the common Greek spoken when Jesus was on earth, when the Roman Empire existed, etc (2000+ years ago). It was your common Greek translation, if you were alive at that time. And these Greek translators rendered the Hebrew word for Jehovah (adonai) into the Greek word "kurios".

    So, henceforth, the New World Translators argue this as justification to do the same in the New Testament. So wherever you see "kurios" (Lord) in the New Testament, it will often be translated not "Lord", but rather as "Jehovah."

    All well and good, you might think at first. Except for major inconsistencies:

    The Jehovah Witnesses do not believe that Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh, that He is the Almighty God incarnate, come to us as a babe in a manger. So guess what? In most places where "kurios" (Lord) is uses for Jesus, they will NOT translate it as "Jehovah", although it's the same exact Greek word. Their dogma overrules this consistency of translation.

    A great case in point is the conversion of Saul (later known as Paul) on the road to Damascus. Acts 9 records that Saul was struck down by a great light, and he heard a voice from heaven saying, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:4)

    Now Saul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, a Pharisee of great zeal. He would definitely have realized this was God. Immediately asked, "Who are you, Lord?" (Acts 9:5)

    Notice that in the New World translation, they translate it "Lord". The same "kurios" that is rendered as "Jehovah" in so many places in the New Testament is rendered as "Lord" here. Why? Because had they translated it consistently as "Jehovah" like they do in other places, they'd have to render Saul's question as "Who are you, Jehovah?", to which Jehovah replies, "I AM JESUS, whom you are persecuting." (Acts 9:5)

    This would go against their denominal theology, and since they won't entertain changing their doctrine against Jesus Christ, even if the truth smacked them in the face, they'll break with the consistency of their own translation where it suits them.

    In my opinion, not only is this inaccurate, it is deceitful.
    __________________

    10/27/2005 - In answer to Hedrick's criticism and biased rating (since he is JW):

    David Hedrick: Check the preface to your Bible, where it explains why the name Jehovah was removed and replaced with 'Lord'.

    TulsaDavid: The early church knew that the Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Jesus of the New Testament. That is because they received a revelation of Who Jesus is, which is the very Rock His church is built upon.

    Mind you, I am monotheistic. But the monotheistic fallacy of the JW heresy I reject. The revelation that God Himself, not some 2nd person of a later-developed triune philosophy, was manifested in flesh as Jesus Christ (I Tim 3:16) is the Rock that His church is built upon.

    The name "Jehovah" was the supreme revelation of God in the Old Testament, with the particular connotation that the Almighty God was specifically the Deliverer and Savior (Exodus 6). The New Testament revelation of God is consistent with the OT emphasis on one God, but it adds the new revelation that God has come in flesh to be our personal savior. Thus the highest name is "Jesus", which literally neans "Jehovah-Savior" (Isaiah 12). That's why the tru apostolic church baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and not in a triune formula.

    The JW's have stopped short of this revelation. But it is Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Almighty, the Alpha and Omega, the true God and eternal life.
    __________________

    10/28/2005 - Criticisms and responses:

    Shallea: (John 1:18) "No man has seen God at any time", seems so simple anyone should understand.

    TulsaDavid: Don't forget the rest of that verse " ... The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."

    God is infinite, absolutely, past finding out. Scripture says His riches are unsearchable. But, thankfully, He has chosen to identify Himself to us, to reveal Himself to us. And He did that in temporary, various and different ways in the OT, but in these last days, He has revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ, the express image of His person. Not a 2nd person, not a 3rd, but God Himself manifested in humanity. This is how the "Son" declared the "Father", not as some 2nd person declaring some 1st person. You'll never find one single verse that specifies these distinctions as being persons. Not one.

    Anonymous: 1 Cor.15:24 "when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father" written by Paul/Saul, Jesus is not God.

    TulsaDavid: I see you are substituting some words in this verse. It accurately reads "when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father". The pronoun "his" is not there. The conjunction "and" is not there. And you're force-fitting a definition that this means Jesus is not God, and that is not there.

    Rightly divide the word. Isa 9:6 says that Jesus is "the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father." Those are definitions, direct equations of Who Jesus is.

    • Like
    • Report

    16 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Shabba on January 10th, 2006

    Shabba

    One of the core points of contention is the first chapter of John's gospel. The reason this is such a big issue is because both faiths are dependent upon the doctrine that comes out of this passage. In particular, the translation of verse 1 is different between the mainstream christian bibles and the NWT bible.
    The mainstream versions translate v1 roughly as: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
    The NWT version translates almost the same, exept it says "and the Word was *a* god".

    Here we find a very big doctrinal difference, because the two passages ascribe completely different properties to 'the Word'. In one, the Word is God - which is a foundation of the Trinity doctrine. In the other, the Word is a god - which indicates separateness from *the* God.

    There is no specific scripture in the bible that says "there is a trinity of father, son and holy spirit", however there are many passages of the bible that can be interpreted to point towards a single, triune God who has different aspects or 'persons' of Himself that he reveals to us individually.

    However, I would like to point out an issue with the first chapter of John. This passage is used to argue that Jesus is/isn't God. I would point out, though, that to begin with this passage is not talking about Jesus. His name is not mentioned until verse 17. Prior to this, it is referring to a being who is known as "the Word".

    Who is this Word? The original Greek word there is 'logos', and is interpreted by scholars to mean the revealed Word of God - as opposed to 'rhema', which is the spoken Word, and 'graphos', which is the written Word. 'logos' seems to refer to God's Word as a living entity, which raises some questions:

    If God's Word is a living entity, is it a part of him or separate from him? Since the bible says we are created in the exact image of God, I believe we can look to ourselves for answers. Our 'word' is a part of us. Indeed in Matthew 15, Jesus specifically states that what comes out of our hearts defiles us - and he is referring here to our words. If our word comes from within our hearts like he says here, then it is a fair indication that our word is a part of us. I think it would be logical to conclude that God's Word comes from His 'heart'.

    If God's Word is a part of him, then can it exist without him? Does our word exist without us? If Neil Armstrong had never been born, his famous words upon setting foot on the Moon would never have been spoken. The same statement may have been made, but it wouldn't be *his* word. If God did not exist, then his Word would never have existed either...

    If God's Word is a part of him, can it act independently of him? My words can never contradict me. Not ever. They say exactly what I intend them to say. An insult will never come out as a compliment - unless I make it that way. I believe that if God's Word is a part of him, then it can never, ever contradict him or do anything independent of him.

    Now it is interesting to read further into John 1, because it specifically says this: "And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth."

    So this entity called 'the Word' is said to become flesh - human. It says that we (humanity) saw his glory, and that his glory was that of a father's only son...

    Here is where the connection with Jesus begins. Firstly Jesus is referred to as the 'only begotten Son of God'. The verse above refers to this 'Word made flesh' as having glory as a father's only son.

    It also says that nobody has ever seen the Father (God), but the Son who is in the bosom of God, has made him known. Again now this refers to Jesus. There is a direct connection between this 'logos' and Jesus, as the bible tends to indicate that Jesus is this 'logos' (revealed Word) made flesh.

    Now, the big issue here is with whether Jesus (that Word made flesh) is a part of God, or apart from (separate from) God. By my understanding, the JW doctrine places Jesus as a created being - the first created being of all (an interpretation of firstborn of all creation). The mainstream church places Jesus as God in the flesh (i.e. his Word made flesh), who is firstborn of all creation by virtue of being the firstborn child of God, who makes us all his family by redemptive adoption.

    Again this raises questions.
    If Jesus is a created being, when was he created? HOW was he created?
    Secondly, if Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, and he is created, then it means that the Word of God was created... How? When?
    I specifically ask how, because Genesis specifically records God's method of creation. Apart from when he formed Man from the dust of the earth and breathed life into his nostrils, every other time he created by his Word! He spoke! If the Word was created at some stage, does this mean that beforehand God was mute? If he was mute, and his primary method of creation is by speaking his Word, how did he create his Word?

    JW doctrine takes Jesus' statement that 'he can do nothing apart from the Father' as a confession of subordination or lesser status - but it can also be interpreted as a confession of his oneness with God - as I questioned before - if God's Word is a part of him, can it do anything apart from him? If Jesus is God's Word made flesh, could he do anything contradictory to or apart from the Father who he is a part of?

    The bible says in Genesis that God created all of creation. Then in John 1 it says that the Word created all of creation - it makes sense, because God created by speaking his Word. Then in Corinthians Paul says that Jesus created all of creation - this seems again to indicate that Jesus is the Word of God.

    There is a verse in the KJV of the bible that talks about 3 that witness in heaven - Father, Word and Holy Spirit, and that these three are one. It is not in any other translation of the bible. This verse is found as a margin note in one specific ancient New Testament scroll. Scholars have researched this and deemed that it is a genuine addition, and not fraudulent. I mention this because it may come up in discussion, and I want people to be aware of it. If genuine, then it does point towards a 'triune' God. Indeed, if we look at the Son of God as the Word of God made flesh, then we can see that a Father, Son, Holy Spirit trinity fits with a Father, Word, Holy Spirit trinity.

    Either way, debating the intricacies of one little particle (the word 'a') while ignoring who the passage is talking about, is like straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel...

    ***

    To answer the begotten/created question: We were created. We were formed from the dust of the earth and God breathed life into our nostrils (by 'we' I refer to the human race). That's where the bible says our origin is. God formed Adam (supposedly fully grown) and gave him life by breathing life into his nostrils. This is important to understand because Jesus was not created this way. He was directly fathered by God - to beget means (primarily of a male) to procreate or generate offspring: to father. Humans were created, and are born out of that creation through human parents. Jesus was fathered by God, and was born out of that divine conception through a human mother but a God father. No, God did not have sex with Mary. The bible says that his Holy Spirit caused the conception of Jesus within her womb.

    One thing that needs to be understood about the physical human man Jesus is that he had a beginning. Jesus Christ - the physical human being - did not always exist. His spirit and soul - the Word of God - did always exist, but the physical man was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary, somewhere between 4BC and 6AD. This does not preclude Theophanies - supposed pre-incarnation appearances of Christ. All it means is that it was the Word of God appearing, rather than the physical man Jesus.

    As for the timing of it - I believe that Jesus existed as the Word of God - who is God. The bible says that God has no beginning. He has existed for eternity, and will exist for eternity. I believe his Word always existed as well, as part of him. However, Jesus Christ, the human incarnation of the Word of God, had a definite temporal beginning. The bible does say that he will have no end - that he will exist for eternity. In fact, the bible says that we will all exist for eternity - even if we did have a beginning - some of us will just have different destinations...

    I hope that gives some understanding to the 'begotten son' thing.

    • Like
    • Report

    7 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by bruceytom on July 2nd, 2007

    bruceytom

    There has been so much traffic on this question that i couldn't read it all, but i ask sincerely of those who criticize the NWT for using 'Jehovah' in the Christian Scriptures: Are you as critical of the many translations who translate YHWH as "LORD" nearly 7000 times. Are the NIV, RSV, NKJV, NASB, NEB, and a dozen others guilty of deception or faulty translation?

    If you will speak out as boldly against taking out God's name where we KNOW it belongs, you have gained some credibility in complaining about some inserting it where where they THINK it belongs.

    For those who defend removing it from the O.T. but rail against using it in the N.T., i ask this somewhat (but openly labeled)loaded question: What do you hate so much about God's chosen name that you can justify removing it, but not adding it? I await any reasoned response.

    • Like
    • Report

    5 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by vew573 on October 3rd, 2010

    vew573

    Annonymous, your question made me think of this article that was published in the Toronto Star.

    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 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.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by anonymous on February 21st, 2006

    anonymous

    The most common complaint is the translation of John 1:1, where many Bibles say "the Word was God", the NWT says "the Word was a god".
    Just one letter or diacritic can significantly alter the meaning of this phrase, as one way indicates that the Word is the Almighty God, the other indicates he is godlike, but not the only true God or an inseperable part of that being. There would seem to be more support for the latter, since just before this it says "the Word was with God", it is not logical for one to say Xanderman was with Xanderman, is it? It is assumed that wherever I am, there too I am. I am not inseperable from myself, so there is no reason to indicate that I am not seperated from myself, but am accompanied by my very own being. Another consideration is the actual greek texts; the phrases which say "the Word was with God", and "the Word was God" do not have the same definite article preceeding the noun,"God", yet to be translated this way in English the translators use the same article. Including this article the text would read "the word was with the god and the word was the god", but that is not how it appears in the original, "the" does not appear before "God" in the second instance, so it can not be introducede and yet have an accurate translation. Having no definite article before it there should be none in the English phrase, and being different phrases in structure they should be translated differently.

    It should be understood that the Greek language has no indefinite article, it only has the definite article, so to insinuate an indefinite the article is simply absent, so any translation into English where there is no definite article must contain the indefinite article with the associated noun.

    This site does not allow for the display of the original language , so to view it and a complete explanation of this translation you can visit http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

    Anyways, a word for word literal translation of the greek text is

    in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word

    Note how the definite article precedes "god" in the first instance, but there is no definite article before the second "god". So the definite article must be used where there is one in the original Greek, but where there is no definite article in Greek, there is no definite article in English, so an indefinite article is introduced to make the speech meaningful and fluent, as it is done in every other place in the entire Bible, to correctly translate it as

    in a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word

    Note now the difference between "the God", and "a god"...with the indefinite article included in the english translation, as it is implied by the absence of a definite article in the greek phrase, entirely changes the meaning of the phrase, and removing it for fluency or any other consideration considerably alters the thought that is trying to be conveyed by the auther, a practice which is unacceptable to any honest language expert. So why has it been translated incorrectly in almost every Bible? Why, where the words are different in the Greek, are they translated the same in English?
    Perhaps the additional removal of Gods name in over 7000 places is an indication that these translations are imperfect. Perhaps the standard doctrinal practice of engaging in warfare prescribed by these groups is also an indication of their heart-felt desires and their use of the Bible to support killing their fellow man is also indicative of their honesty in translation and application of the scriptures?

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Elijah on October 18th, 2010

    Elijah

    There are several scriptures that are accused of being innaccurate, however, upon closer examination we see that the NWT is closer to the original manuscripts than the other trinitarian-biased translations.

    Take, for instance, John 1:1. In actuality, the charge should be reversed since the absence of the indefinite article (a) at John 1:1c has been purposely mistranslated in most Trinitarian-produced Bibles to fit their doctrine that Jesus is God.

    In New Testament Greek, the language does have a definite article ("the"), but it does not have an indefinite article ("a" or an"). At John 1:1, there are two occurrences of theos (god). The first one has the definite article ("the") but the second one in the third part of John 1:1 (the one in question) SIGNIFICANTLY DOES NOT.

    If one carefully examines John 1:1, they will see that it shows that "the Word was...WITH God". Commenting on this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was WITH God. Since the Word (Jesus) is written and identified in John 1:1 as a separate person from God (not just the Father), then that would positively exclude him as being God.

    Even Origen, the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word [logos] was *a* god". - "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.

    And the Coptic language (unlike the Greek) used an indefinite article ("a" or "an" in English). So it is very interesting when the Coptic text renders John 1:1 this way:

    "In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was *a* God."
    http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-does-coptic-text-render-john-11.html (Video at bottom)

    Links to research concerning John 1:1
    http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2010/04/john-11.html
    __________________________

    Another example (mentioned in one answer to this question) is Col. 1:16.

    The use of the word "other" by the NWT at Col. 1:16 makes many trinitarian "scholars" very upset. The accusation is perfectly clear: they are claiming that the NWT has dishonestly added to God's Word. But what is the truth about words added to the original text?

    Well, the KJV also adds words at many places in the scriptures and frequently signifies these additions by italicizing such added words. In fact all Bible translations add words to make the intended meaning of the original language clear to the readers of another language. The NWT usually indicates added words with brackets [ ] and does so at Col. 1:16, 17 with ["other"].

    Yes, all Bible translators supply needed words in accordance with their own under-standing of what meaning the Bible writer actually intended. Any serious Bible student knows this elementary fact. You can see that the KJV translators (and NIV, NKJV, TEV/GNB, Beck, etc.) added the word "other" at Acts 5:29 (and rightly so) even though it is not actually written in the original text (also compare KJV at Job 24:24). Were they, then, dishonestly, blasphemously adding to God's Word? Of course not!

    The Bible writers very often excluded the subject (and others) when using the term "all" (and "every"). This is a common usage even today. For example, the police sergeant making an arrest of a criminal group might say: "Everyone in this room is under arrest!" Obviously the sergeant does not include himself (nor his captain who is with him) even though he says "everyone". Or "the criminal tied up everyone in the room before stealing the gems."

    For more responses to false charges about the NWT, see:
    http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2009_11_01_archive.html

    Should God's name “Jehovah" appear in the New Testament?
    http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2010/01/should-gods-name-jehovah-appear-in-new.html

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by vew573 on October 1st, 2010

    vew573

    Here are some statements about the NWT by various Scholars. I realize that many people would like to believe that the NWT is a biased translation. Atually, the Catholic Telegraph-Register carried an article by a monsignor which stated: "Sect Rewrites Parts of Bible to fit Beliefs". I have the published reply to this article that was given nation-wide publicity...If anyone would like to read it. It is quiet long and I can't just post a link.

    1. J.D. PHILLIPS: (J.D. Phillips was a Church of Christ Minister, schooled in the
    original tongues). “Last week I purchased a copy of your New World
    Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an
    owner. You have done a marvelous work…I was happy, indeed, to see the name
    Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I
    pray God that your Version will be used to His glory. What you have done for
    the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!”

    ALLEN WIKGREN: (Allen Wikgren was on the New Revised Standard Version
    committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek text).
    “Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such
    as…the Jehovah’s Witnesses edition of the New Testament(1950).” (The
    Interpreter’s Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99)

    BENJAMIN KEDAR: (Benjamin Kedar is a
    professor at Hebrew University in Israel). “In my linguistic research in connection with
    the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what
    is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling
    repeatedly confirmed that this 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 translation. 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.”

    S. MACLEAN GILMORE: “In 1950 the Jehovah’s Witnesses published their New World
    Translation of the New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old
    Testament is now far advanced. The New Testament edition was made by a
    committee…that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.” (The Andover Newton
    Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page 25, 26) C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman
    notes that on the point of translator bias “the New World Translation of the
    Jehovah’s Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism.” (Nederlands
    Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280)

    WILLIAM CAREY TAYLOR: (William C. Taylor was a Southern Baptist Minister
    schooled in the original tongues). “Just when the infidel universities of this
    land thought they had laughed out of court the very name Jehovah, up…surges..
    “Jehovah’s Witnesses”. …And with considerable scholarship they get out their
    own New Testament and lo and behold, they put Jehovah into the New Testament two
    or three hundred times…It ought to be there [in the entire Bible] many times”
    (The New Bible Pro and Con, 1955 Page 75)
    C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias “the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism.” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280

    CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER: “the New World Translation of the Christian Greek
    Scriptures…the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best
    manuscript texts…with scholarly ability and acumen.” (The Faith Men Live By,
    1954, Page 239)

    EDGAR J. GOODSPEED: (Edgar J. Goodspeed was a Professor of Greek at the
    University of Chicago, and also translated the New Testament portion of “The
    Bible an American Translation”). “I am…much pleased with the free, frank and
    vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I
    can testify.” (Personal Letter to Arthur Goux of Brooklyn Bethel, December 8,
    1950; See also Watchtower September 1, 1952 page 541, where Goodspeed is quoted
    as stating that the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was
    “an interesting and scholarly work” )

    ROBERT M. MCCOY: “The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the
    presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the
    many problems of Biblical translation.” (The Andover Newton Quarterly, January
    1963, Vol. 3, #3, Page 31)

    STEVEN T. BYINGTON: (Steven T. Byington translated the version known as “The
    Bible in Living English”). “If you are digging for excellent or suggestive
    renderings this is among the richer mines.” (Christian Century, “Review of the
    New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, November 1, 1950 page
    1296)

    JASON BEDUHN: (Jason Beduhn teaches at the University of Indiana). “I have just
    recently completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of
    Indiana University, Bloomington, …This is primarily a course in the Gospels.
    Your help came in the form of copies of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of
    the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the
    class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with
    my students…Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I
    am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in
    use in modern biblical studies, and by the way, not a member of the Jehovah’s
    Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your ‘New World
    Bible Translation Committee’ has done its job well. Your interlinear English
    rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to
    come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the
    Greek-speaking world and our own. Your ‘New World Translation’ is a high
    quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness
    to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations
    in use today.”


    When a new Bible translation is published in English many people wonder why, because a great many English versions already exist. Some may even argue that the King James Version gives us the Bible in English; so why produce new translations?

    The principal reason is to give the public a translation of God’s Word that accurately expresses the fine shades of meaning contained in the Hebrew and Greek of Bible manuscripts and that at the same time is understandable to the average person living today.

    The King James Version itself was actually a new translation in its day, really a revision of previous English versions. It met the need for a clearer translation of God’s Word then, and now new versions again meet our need for an easily understood version.

    The English language has changed since 1611, when the King James Version was released. Many words that were used then are no longer used today or their meanings have changed. For example, do you understand the language of the King James Version in its rendering of Genesis 25:29? It says: “Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint.” In a new translation that uses the English we speak today this verse reads: “Once Jacob was boiling up some stew, when Esau came along from the field and he was tired.” (NW)

    Since the purpose in reading the Bible is to learn from it, is not that goal more easily attained when the language used in it is the English that is spoken in this twentieth century rather than that spoken in the seventeenth century?

    The translations of the Bible of which the King James Version was a revision were based upon a small number of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Many thousands of manuscripts have been found since then, some being as much as a thousand years older than those.

    The fact that these manuscript copies are older means they are closer in time to the original writings and are, therefore, more accurate, having fewer copyist errors. Their existence urges the production of new translations that can incorporate the refinements they make possible.

    The continually improved knowledge scholars are gaining of the ancient languages of Hebrew and Greek is another factor that makes new Bible versions necessary. They have a much better understanding of these languages today than did the Bible translators of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

    It was not until the close of the eighteenth century that archaeological findings revealed that the Greek-language manuscripts of the Bible were written in a form of Greek that was spoken by the common people. It differed a little from the classical Greek, just as the English spoken by a laborer often differs from that spoken by the upper class in society.

    Prior to this discovery scholars made their translations according to their understanding of classical Greek. This resulted in inaccuracies because word meanings according to classical Greek often differed somewhat from the common, or koine, Greek.

    For example, the King James Version renders Matthew 6:27 this way: “Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature ? The word it translates “stature” or size was right in Luke 2:52 and 19:3 and Ephesians 4:13, but the common, or koine, Greek also gave the word the meaning of age or time of life. Knowing the extended meaning of the word, modern translators make this verse plainer and more accurate. One version says: “Who of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his life span?” (NW) So the thought should be life span instead of stature.

    The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary calls it (The NWT) one of the “major translations of the Bible into English,” along with the Knox translation, the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible and the New English Bible. p. 292

    ALEXANDER THOMPSON: “The NWT is evidently the work of skilled and
    clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the
    Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing.” (TheDifferentiator, April 1952, Page 52)

    EDGAR FOSTER: (Classics Major, Lenoir-Rhyne College)
    “Before I formally began to study Greek, I simply compared the NWT with lexicons,
    commentaries, and other translations to try and determine it’s
    accuracy. It passed the litmus test then and it also passes the test
    now for me…The NWT is a fine translation. In my mind, it is the translation
    _par excellence_. But I feel just as confortable with an RSV or an
    NASB. Mostly I prefer my UBS Greek text.”

    THOMAS N. WINTER: (Thomas N. Winter taught Greek at the University of
    Nebraska). “I think it (NWT) is a legitimate and highly useful aid toward the mastery
    of koine (and classical) Greek. After examining a copy, I equipped several
    interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary test. After
    learning the proper pronunciations, a motivated student could probably learn
    koine from this source alone. …the translation by the anonymous committee is
    thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate. ....…In sum, when a witness comes
    to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well
    to place an order.” (The Classical Journal, “The Kingdom Interlinear”,
    April-May 1974, pages 375, 376) See Also: “Bible Translation how to choose
    between them” by Alan S. Duthie,(Alan S. Dunthie is a professor at the
    University of Legon), Page103. Comments by Dr. Rijkel ten Kate
    Top of Form
    Bottom of Form

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by vew573 on June 13th, 2010

    vew573

    During the days of Jesus apostles in the first century C.E., Christian congregations were formed in many lands.

    Since Greek had become the international language, many congregations used the Greek Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures completed in the second century B.C.E.

    Fragments of the Greek Septuagint that date from the first century B.C.E. clearly show Jehovha's name, represented in the Greek text by the four Hebew letters (YHWH), or the Tetragrammaton. Professor George Howard wrote: "We have three separate pre-Christian copies of the Greek Septuagint bible and in not a single instance is the Tetragrammaton translated kyrios or for that matter translated at all. we can say with near certainty that it was a jewish practice before, during, and after the New Testament period to write the divine name...right into the Greek text of Scripture." BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW.

    Did Jesus' apostles and disciples use God's name in their inspired writings? Professor Howard notes: "When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations."

    Therefore, we may safely conclude that the first Chriatians could read God's name both in their translations of the Hebrew Scriptures and in their copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by singwell-is off researching a lot on September 25th, 2007

    singwell-is off researching a lot

    Not THOUGHT to be...ARE. The places are numerous.Additions of "other" before statements such as that Jesus is Lord of all creation, the replacement of Kurios (Lord) with "Jehovah" (it is just not there in the Greek).
    The upshot is that there is a constant playing with the NT text to prove that the JW doctrines are right. You just cannot do that. That is a paraphrase, not a translation.
    Even the Roman Catholics do not play with the texts that say that there is no mediator between God and man, save Jesus, despite the fact that this contradicts RC doctrine. They, at least, know not to touch truth.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on September 25th, 2007

    Anonymous

    Inaccurate or deception? There are so many "errors" in the NWT translation but look a just one. the bible commands, Do not add or take away words. Rev 22:18,19 NWT. Also, do not adulterate the word of God 2Cor 4:2 NWT.Watchtower advice, Check the translation with a Greek interlinear such as their own.Lets do that and ask the questions,Do the society add words? Do they omit words? Do they alter the meaning of the Greek? Is the Greek translated consistently or are biased changes made?.
    The NWT translation of John 1:1.
    In John 1:1 NWT "THEOS" becomes "a God". i.e "the word was a god."
    The KIT appendix (page 1158-1160) explains that "THEOS" is rendered as "a god" because it is "anarthrous" i.e without the Greek definite article"O". This principle of translation should be applied consistently, is it?.
    In Mark 12:26,27 NWT, The "anarthrous "THEOS" is rendered twice as God and once as "a God"
    NOTE THE INCONSISTENCY, only 16 times out of 282 occurences of the anarthrous "THEOS" does the NWT render it as "god", "a god", "gods", or "godly". This means the society made up its own rule and then broke it 94 times out of a 100. THIS IS DECEPTION NOT TRANSLATION. The rule most Greek scholars accept is called "Colrule", which says,
    "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb, it does not need the article when it preceeds it"
    The "THEOS" in question in John 1:1 comes before the verb "was"and therefore does not need the definite article.
    B F Westcott, whose Greek text it is, says clearly
    "It is necessarily without the article in as much as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His person". (The Gospel According to John, p 63). The Watchtower Society`s transation of John 1:1 is the need to support a specific viewpoint.This is just one of THE DELIBERATE DECEPTIONS IN THE NWT.

    • Like
    • Report

    6 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by brian_griffith on December 30th, 2006

    brian_griffith

    ( ... the following information was provided to me from the head pastor of my old church)

    "For what grammatical reasons do we translate the second occurrence of the-os' as "... and the Word was God" as opposed to "... and the Word was a god" in John 1:1?

    For the same reason why we translate (as does the NWT) the verse "In THE beginning" and not "In a beginning." You see, there's no article (in the Greek) before the word "beginning". But everybody translates it with an article because of what it means. The "Reasoning From The Scriptures" (JW resource book) says: "whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone". OK, let's apply that. The verse translates like this:

    "In that which was by quality beginning..." -- in other words, not a particular beginning, but what was IN ESSENCE and QUALITY a beginning. Because the lack of an article speaks of the quality of something, we translate it in English with an article because that which is in essence the beginning must be THE beginning. Does that make sense? The NWT translates it with an article, showing the inconsistency of their use of Greek Grammatical rules.

    Apply this same concept to the phrase "The word was God." The Bible is saying that the Word (Jesus) was continually (the tense of the verb) IN ESSENCE AND QUALITY God. That actually speaks more of the Deity of Christ than if John had used an article. He is saying that the Word is not just God by title or association, but in essence and quality. And of course he couldn't use an article because Jesus is not the Father. He is God, but He is not the same person as the Father, though both (along with the Holy Spirit) make up ONE God.

    Here is an example from the NWT: In [the] beginning (<-- NO article!) the Word was, and the Word was with God (<-- article), and the Word was a god (<-- NO article!).

    Why would they play favorites in their translating techniques?! Because the NWT applies its grammatical rules inconsistently AND an accurate translation wouldn't fit their theology."

    p.s. Don't be a coward, if you are going to rate this answer down ... give an explanation or PROVE TO ME THAT I AM WRONG! I am not worried. I am ASKING for it ... I just have a feeling that NO ONE is going to deliver it. SHAME.

    • Like
    • Report

    4 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by parousia on January 20th, 2006

    parousia

    Kurios = Anointed..........not Jesus or Jehovah

    Jesus = Jehovah Salvation

    I guess no one had ever heard of a Greek/English Lexicon

    Ever heard of Strongs Concordance????

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by vew573 on June 13th, 2010

    vew573

    During the days of Jesus apostles in the first century C.E., Christian congregations were formed in many lands.

    Since Greek had become the international language, many congregations used the Greek Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures completed in the second century B.C.E.

    Fragments of the Greek Septuagint that date from the first century B.C.E. clearly show Jehovha's name, represented in the Greek text by the four Hebew letters (YHWH), or the Tetragrammaton. Professor George Howard wrote: "We have three separate pre-Christian copies of the Greek Septuagint bible and in not a single instance is the Tetragrammaton translated kyrios or for that matter translated at all. we can say with near certainty that it was a jewish practice before, during, and after the New Testament period to write the divine name...right into the Greek text of Scripture." BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW.

    Did Jesus' apostles and disciples use God's name in their inspired writings? Professor Howard notes: "When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations."

    Therefore, we may safely conclude that the first Chriatians could read God's name both in their translations of the Hebrew Scriptures and in their copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

    Thus the reason for the NWT's including God's Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Which parts of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, used by the Jehovah's Witnesses, are thought to be inaccurate?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Is the new world translation of the holy scriptures inaccurate
John 11 25 new world translation of the holy scriptures
Scriptural changes made in the new world translation
Acts 12 26 new world translation
Proverbs 8 22 new world translation

Answerbag

a Demand Media company