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). âœLast 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 workâ¦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!â
ALLEN WIKGREN: (Allen Wikgren was on the New Revised Standard Version
committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek text).
âœIndependent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such
asâ¦the Jehovahâ™s Witnesses edition of the New Testament(1950).â (The
Interpreterâ™s Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99)
BENJAMIN KEDAR: (Benjamin Kedar is a
professor at Hebrew University in Israel). âœIn 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 Hebrewâ¦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.â
S. MACLEAN GILMORE: âœIn 1950 the Jehovahâ™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
committeeâ¦that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.â (The Andover Newton
Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page 25, 26) C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman
notes that on the point of translator bias âœthe New World Translation of the
Jehovahâ™s Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism.â (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). âœJust when the infidel universities of this
land thought they had laughed out of court the very name Jehovah, upâ¦surges..
âœJehovahâ™s Witnessesâ. â¦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 timesâ¦It ought to be there [in the entire Bible] many timesâ
(The New Bible Pro and Con, 1955 Page 75)
C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias âœthe New World Translation of the Jehovahâ™s Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism.â Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280
CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER: âœthe New World Translation of the Christian Greek
Scripturesâ¦the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best
manuscript textsâ¦with scholarly ability and acumen.â (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 âœThe
Bible an American Translationâ). âœI amâ¦much pleased with the free, frank and
vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I
can testify.â (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
âœan interesting and scholarly workâ )
ROBERT M. MCCOY: âœThe 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.â (The Andover Newton Quarterly, January
1963, Vol. 3, #3, Page 31)
STEVEN T. BYINGTON: (Steven T. Byington translated the version known as âœThe
Bible in Living Englishâ). âœIf you are digging for excellent or suggestive
renderings this is among the richer mines.â (Christian Century, âœReview 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). âœI have just
recently completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of
Indiana University, Bloomington, â¦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 studentsâ¦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 Jehovahâ™s
Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your â˜New World
Bible Translation Committeeâ™ 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 â˜New World Translationâ™ 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.â
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 Godâ™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 Godâ™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: âœJacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint.â In a new translation that uses the English we speak today this verse reads: âœOnce Jacob was boiling up some stew, when Esau came along from the field and he was tired.â (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: âœWhich of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature ? The word it translates âœstatureâ 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: âœWho of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his life span?â (NW) So the thought should be life span instead of stature.
The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary calls it (The NWT) one of the âœmajor translations of the Bible into English,â along with the Knox translation, the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible and the New English Bible. p. 292
ALEXANDER THOMPSON: âœThe 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.â (TheDifferentiator, April 1952, Page 52)
EDGAR FOSTER: (Classics Major, Lenoir-Rhyne College)
âœBefore I formally began to study Greek, I simply compared the NWT with lexicons,
commentaries, and other translations to try and determine itâ™s
accuracy. It passed the litmus test then and it also passes the test
now for meâ¦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.â
THOMAS N. WINTER: (Thomas N. Winter taught Greek at the University of
Nebraska). âœI 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. â¦the translation by the anonymous committee is
thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate. ....â¦In sum, when a witness comes
to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well
to place an order.â (The Classical Journal, âœThe Kingdom Interlinearâ,
April-May 1974, pages 375, 376) See Also: âœBible Translation how to choose
between themâ 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
Comments
And that is just one...
by Thom64 on October 24th, 2005
Useful because it contains reference to a debated scripture, but conclusions are all wrong.
by Anonymous on December 16th, 2005
by Acts238 on December 10th, 2005
(John 1:18) "No man has seen God at any time", seems so simple anyone should understand.
by Anonymous on October 27th, 2005
1 Cor.15:24 "when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father" written by Paul/Saul, Jesus is not God
by Anonymous on October 27th, 2005
I have to give this answer a 9.999! excellent!
by wfbrad on December 1st, 2005
Absolutely correct!
by Autumn Riley on December 7th, 2005
Not one single comment mentions Proverbs 8;22-30. Jesus was created. God's very first. God was not.
by pugwashjw65 on January 2nd, 2006
Hang on Pugwash. Jn 1:2 "He was in the beginning with God." Then read Gen 1:1 and 2. Jesus Created? Get real!
by Shabba on January 10th, 2006
Hey pug- you silly. Proverbs 8:22-30 is anthropomorphic. It gives wisdom, "she", human characteristics. It is talking about wisdom not Christ. Besides if you think that there was a time that God did not have wisdom, then He wouldn't have been God, now would He?
by ViceGrip on November 16th, 2006
pugwashjw65: check out Proverbs 9:1-2 - "Wisdom has built HER house; SHE has hewn out it's seven pillars. SHE has prepared HER meat and mixed HER wine; SHE has also set HER table." ... are you calling Jesus a woman?! If Jesus is this wisdom (like JW's like to say because it fits into their "Jesus was created" story) ... then why is wisdom a woman in the story?! ViceGrip is RIGHT! The use of wisdom in Proverbs 8 is anthropomorphic ... and is NOT meant to be read OUT OF CONTEXT ... like you are doing! It isn't Jesus talking ... it is the author of Proverbs (Solomon) personifying the idea of wisdom as a woman to illustrate his point that wisdom is supreme. It has NOTHING to do with Jesus ... please explain why you think Jesus is a woman!
by brian_griffith on December 30th, 2006
Anonymous: Jesus and the Father are EQUAL in divinity (Father: Isaiah 41:4 // Jesus: Revelation 2:8) ... but they are not equal in position to one another ... Jesus submits to the Father. If your father tells you do take out the trash ... and you obey him ... does that make you not equal to him in your human nature? NO! You are still a human ... just like he is!
by brian_griffith on December 30th, 2006
pugwashjw65: It has been a few days since I have left my comment above. I will assume that you have conceded to my point and that you have no defense in return. Good day.
by brian_griffith on January 4th, 2007
In line with the principle at 1Cor 15:27-28, it is evident that everything, would be with the exception of himself and God, as he obviously did not create himself or God. The Bible shows that God created Jesus and then through Jesus, he created everything else.
1Cor 15:27-28 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.
(1 Corinthians 8:6) there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.
(Hebrews 1:2) has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things.
(John 1:3) All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5565&t=NASB
(John 1:10) He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him.
(Colossians 1:15-16) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.
(Revelation 3:14) “And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,
(Proverbs 8:22) “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.
(Proverbs 8:30) then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time,
(Genesis 1:26) And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.”
by Texasescimo on December 14th, 2009
Brian Griffith, in Isaiah 44:6, Jehovah rightly describes his own position as the one and only almighty God, saying: “I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.” When Jesus presents himself by the title “the First and the Last,” he is not claiming equality with Jehovah, the Grand Creator. He is using a title properly bestowed on him by God. In Isaiah, Jehovah was making a statement about His unique position as the true God. He is God eternal, and besides him there is indeed no God. (1 Timothy 1:17) In Revelation, Jesus is talking about his bestowed title, calling attention to his unique resurrection.
3Jesus was indeed “the First” human to be resurrected to immortal spirit life. (Colossians 1:18) Moreover, he is “the Last” to be so resurrected by Jehovah personally. Thus, he becomes “the living one . . . living forever and ever.” He enjoys immortality. In this, he is like his immortal Father, who is called “the living God.” (Revelation 7:2; Psalm 42:2) For all others of humanity, Jesus himself is “the resurrection and the life.” (John 11:25) In harmony with this, he says to John: “I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” (Revelation 1:18b) Jehovah has given him the authority to resurrect the dead. That is why Jesus can say that he has the keys to unlock the gates for those bound by death and Hades (gravedom).—Compare Matthew 16:18.
by Texasescimo on January 25th, 2010
I would like to see someone explain why YHWH or JHVH and adonai are both translated as lord when YHWH or JHVH and adonai are both in the Hebrew scriptures. Is there some kind of evidence that YHWH has been added and that is why the traditional Church pleasing translators remove it?
Psalms 110:1 looks kinda redundant saying something like "The LORD said to my Lord".
by Texasescimo on October 3rd, 2010