The bottom line is "What is the reason for the Bibles existence"? Was Almighty God the author, using 40 different writers spread over 1500 years?. The Bible, when studied, presents God's plan for us, to us. God has a plan that will not be changed regardless of translation mistakes. He will make sure that if any mistakes are made that may cause the basic understanding to change, then He will rectify it. To believe this does take faith.. From Genesis to Revelation, the theme of the Bible is to finalise God's initial plan. To populate the world with perfect people who obey Him. And no one ever dies. What we have seen going on in the last few thousands of years is only a hiccup from God's point of view. Revelation 21;4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” And Psalm 37;29 The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it. Two simple scriptures that cannot possibly be mis-translated.

It's 98% accurate and 2% willfully doctored up.Do you want to use it?

Yes, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said: "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and 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 translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain". British Bible scholar Alexander Thomson noted that the New World Translation is outstanding in accurately rendering the Greek present tense. To illustrate: Ephesians 5:25 reads "Husbands, continue loving your wives", instead of saying merely "Husbands, love your wife". (King James Version) " No other version appears to have exhibited this fine feature with such fulness and frequency". said Thomson regarding the New World Translation. Another outstanding feature of the New World Translation is its use of God's personal name, Jehovah, in both the Hebrew and the Greek portions of the Scriptures. Since the Hebrew name for God appears nearly 7,000 times in the so-called Old Testament alone, it is clear that our Creator wants his worshipers to use his name and to know him as a person. (Exodus 34:6, 7) The New World Translation has helped millions of people to do so.

This version is very doctored up. First of all there is no use of the word "Jehovah" in the entire Greek scriptures from which the Bible was translated, but JW's freely put Jehovah where Lord refers to the Father, but leave Lord when it refers to the Son. Secondly, any scripture referring to the Son's divinity or Him being God is altered and made to look like he is a created being. They take away from his rightful praise and worship. ex. the same word "proskuneo" referring to the Father is translated worship, but when it refers to the Son it's obeisance. Hummmm...... The addition of the word [other] 5 times in Col 1:16-20 is another one of many poor and sad translations used in the NWT that is said to make the reading read smoother, but I ask; If you take the word out (that's not supposed to be there in the first place) does it change the meaning of the text? Go ahead, read it yourself out loud! YES! What does the Bible say about adding words to the Bible? Rev 21:18-20. It was added to make Christ look like a created being and not the Creator himself! John 5:23! How do you honor the Father? Well if you worship him then guess what? Worship the Son also! I'll pray for you!

The majority of the world’s credible scholars say that it is a terrible translation. Notice the first person listed Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel in the answer by perryman. He is speaking of the Hebrew scripture which is the Old Testament. The Watch Tower doesn't really start to mess with the scripture until you get to the NT originally in Greek regarding the subject of Jesus' divinity (being God). They claim he was a created being therefore not worthy of worship. Anywhere Jesus is spoken of as God, they blasphemously change it to match their theology and false doctrine. Check out these sources given by Ron Rhodes in his book "The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah's Witness": Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World Translation "a shocking mistranslation." (Julius R. Mantey, cited in Erich and Jean Grieshaber, Expose of Jehovah's Witnesses(Tyler:Jean Books, 1982), p.30) Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, late professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the New World Translation "a frightful mistranslation," "erroneous," "pernicious," and "reprehensible." (Bruce Metzger, Theology Today, April 1953.) Dr. William Barclay asserted that "the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translation....It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." (William Barclay, The Expository Times, November 1953.) Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek of the New World Translation, concluded that the translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation...It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly." (Robert H Countess, The Jehovah's Witness New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982), p.91.) British scholar Dr. H.H. Rowley asserted, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." Rowley also said this translation is "an insult to the Word of God." (Ibid.) see above

I have taught Greek, Hebrew, and three other languages while speaking Russian and Ukrainian. I work full-time making sure that the next Ukrainian Bible conforms to the original languages. Does that make me an expert? The NWTHS is the worst translation I have ever encountered, not because of incompetence but because of intentional falsification. In Genesis 1:3, for example, ruakh elohim is translated "God's active force." Absolutely impossible translation. Even if the Holy Spirit WAS just "God's active force," they have no right to translate those words (which mean "the Spirit of God") in that way. Putting it on the pages of a book that they call "the Bible" is counterfeiting, plain and simple. There are plenty of other examples. One of these years I may write a book.

Regarding the “New World Translation,” Professor Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: “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 translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the ‘New World Translation’ any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.”

Yes there are. Here are more: "It Is the Best Interlinear New Testament Available" THAT is how Dr. Jason BeDuhn describes The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. He explains: "I have just completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of Indiana University, Bloomington, [U.S.A.] . . . 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." Why does Dr. BeDuhn use the Kingdom Interlinear translation in his college courses? He answers: "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." The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures is published by Jehovah's Witnesses to help lovers of God's Word get acquainted with the original Greek text of the Bible. It contains The New Testament in the Original Greek on the left-hand side of the page (compiled by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort). A literal word-for-word English translation is found under the lines of Greek text. In the narrow right-hand column is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which allows you to compare the interlinear translation with a modern English translation of the Bible. ( From the 2/1/98 Watchtower Page 32) 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." (Taken from the 12/1/2004 Watchtower, Page 30) Jason David BeDuhn is the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins form Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in s Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana University, Bloomington.

the New World Trans. is based on American Standard Version the most useful version in centuries.

No. They have made numerous blatant changes to fit their own cult. One, found at John 1:1, changes "And the word was God" to "And the word was a god". This was done to refute the Trinity.

There are more than enough scholars who do not recognize the NTW as a valid interpretaion, see below. What's an organization to do when its teachings and practices are contradicted by the Bible? Why, you publish your very own version of the Bible. That is precisely what the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society did. In 1961, it published The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT). The NWT is defined by the Watchtower in their Reasoning from the Scriptures as "a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah" (p.276). Some Christians may ask, "Why the New World Translation?" Evidence bears out the fact that the Watchtower Society thought that all the other translations (KJV, ASV, etc.) had been corrupted where the Bible tranlators actually let their religious bias show through their renderings (The Watchtower, 10/15/85, p.21, Insight on the News). David Reed, an ex-Witness, says in his book, Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse that basically the New World Translation came into being for the sole purpose of supporting Watchtower doctrines showing their own bias (pp.17-18). Reed says, "So, during the 1950's, Watchtower leaders went beyond interpretation by producing their own version of the Bible, with hundreds of verses changed to fit Watchtower doctrine. And, their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures continues to be rewritten every few years, with additional changse made to bring God's Word into closer agreement with what the organization teaches." The New World Translation systematically sets out to eliminate evidence for the deity of Christ. Instead of falling at Jesus' feet to worship Him, people did "obeisouce" to Him. John 1:1 no longer says "the Word was God" but "the Word was a God." Jesus did not say, "Before Abraham was, I am" but rather to avoid association with the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14, Jesus's statement becomes, "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." The most widespread change in the Watchtower Bible is the insertion of the name JEHOVAH 237 times in the New Testament. Of course, it is appropriate for a translator to choose to use the divine name JEHOVAH or YAHWEH in the Old Testament where the Tetragrammator YHWH actually appears in the Hebrew text. However, the Watchtower has gone beyond this by inserting the name JEHOVAH in the New Testament, where it does not appear in Greek manuscripts. One need only look at the word-by-word English that appears under the Greek text in the Society's own Kingdom Interlinear Translation to see that the name JEHOVAH is not there in the Greek. Why the bias concerning Christ? Because the Watchtower teaches that Jesus is a mighty god, but not the almighty God, a creature rather than the Creator. Source: The New World Translation Is Not The Word of God, by Clete Hux, Watchman Fellowship -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures was completed in 1961. Dr. Hoekema agrees with what many others have said concerning this version: "Their New World Translation is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself" (Anthony Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, pp. 238,239). Greek scholar, Dr. Robert Countess wrote a well documented and thorough critical analysis of their New World Translation in which he concluded, "(It) must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly" (The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament, p. 93). The Witnesses also have two Greek interliner New Testament texts. The older work is The Emphatic Diaglott, translated by Benjamin Wilson, a Christadelphian with no credentials in Greek. The other is The Kingdom Interliner Translation of the Greek Scriptures, published in 1969, combines the Westcott and Hort Greek text with the Society's translation and an improved text of the New World Translation. Both works clearly reveal a doctrinal bias. Source: Jehovah's Witnesses: An Overview by Craig Branch As for Dr. BeDuhn, he makes note, "I am sure you are aware of historical objections to the (re)insertion of `Jehovah' into the translation. Of course, no Greek Gospel manuscripts support this, but I will not quibble with you about that" Dr. Benjamin Kedar also endorses the NWT. He made it clear to the Watchtower, however, that he no longer wishes to answer questions concerning his stance.11 His comments are limited to the Old Testament and are not influential concerning the identity of Jesus. Other names produced by the Watchtower are not names of scholars. Perhaps BeDuhn and Kedar are unaware of the lack of credentials that plague this organization's translators. Bill Cetnar explained that of the supposed translators, only F. W. Franz, fourth president of the Watchtower, had any schooling in this area, and his abilities to translate were proven inadequate in a Scottish Court in November 1954. Source: Examining Translations with Jehovah's Witnesses by Rachel D. Ramer

My favorite perversion in the Jehovah's Witness translation is Acts 20:28, where pastors are admonished to "Pay attention to your selves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son]. Notice the brackets. The original says "which God purchased with His own blood"--a reference to the Trinity and the Incarnation--but God didn't know what the hell He was talking about, so Jehovah's Witnesses corrected Him. And in foreign translations of their translation, such as the Ukrainian one on my shelf, there isn't even a bracket present. It's not translation, it's not interpretation. It's denial, revision, and perversion.

Yes there are experts in comparative religions and languages, (Hebrew, Greek or both) who regard this translation as accurate and scholarly. Some of these include Jason David Debuhn, Associate Professor of Religious Studies and department chair at Northern Arizona University. He received his doctorate from Indiana University in 1995, and won the Best First Book Award from the American Academy of Religion in 2001, also author of the book "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament." In this book, while critical of some points of translation, he says that overall the NWT is very accurate. In fact, he ranked it as one of the most accurate translations available. Another is Professor Benjamin Kedar; born 1938, Nitra (Czechoslovakia) and received his PhD from Yale in 1969. Professor Kedar is a professor of History as well as the Director of the Institute of Advanced Studies at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. He has been quoted as saying; "Since several individuals and institutions have addressed me concerning the following matter, I make this statement; henceforth it will be sent instead of a personal letter to anyone appealing to me to clarify my position. 1) Several years ago I quoted the so-called New World Translation among several Bible versions in articles that dealt with purely philological [pertaining to the study/science of languages] questions (such as the rendition of the causative hiphil, of the participle qotel). In the course of my comparative studies I found the NWT rather illuminating: it gives evidence of an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of Hebrew as well as an honest effort to faithfully render these in the target [English] language. A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such its details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding to the Hebrew Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous rendition which would find its explanation in a dogmatic bias. Repeatedly I have asked the antagonists of the Watchtower-Bible who turned to me for a clarification of my views, to name specific verses for a renewed scrutiny. This was either not done or else the verse submitted (e.g. Genesis 4:13, 6:3, 10:9, 15:5, 18:20 etc.) did not prove the point, namely a tendentious[with a purposed aim/biased] translation. 2) I beg to make clear that I do not feel any sympathy for any sect and this includes Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, my mistrust is not directed against the individual member of such sect but rather against the organization that manipulates him and puts forward its dogmas and rules as the ultimate truth. It should be conceded, however, that the groups and organizations that fiercely oppose the witnesses do not behave any better. On the whole, synagogue, church and mosque also tend to exhibit dogmatic arrogance coupled with intolerance of and enmity with other confessions. 3) I cannot help expressing my deep conviction that the search for truth will never benefit by linguistic quibble. Whether the author using the word naephaesh denoted 'soul' as opposed to body(Lev 17:11) or meant something else, whether 'almah' means 'virgin' or 'young woman'(Is 7:14) is of great interest to philologists and historians of religion; an argument for or against blood transfusion or the virgin-birth of Jesus respectively, cannot be derived from it. 4) Obviously, it is man's destiny to make the choice of his way a matter of conscience and to the best of his knowledge. There exists no simple set of rules such as could be learned from the mouth of a guru or the pages of an ancient venerable book. Those who pretend to act according to an infallible guide, more often than not interpret the texts in accordance with their preconceived wishes and notions.” Rolf Johan Furuli is a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo. He is currently involved in translation, and is considered an expert in ancient languages. As of 2003 he was at work on a doctoral thesis suggesting a new understanding of Classical Hebrew. Furuli started his studies of New Babylonian chronology in 1984. He is able to read Akkadian, Aramaic, English, Greek, Hebrew and Norwegian. In one of his books, titled "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation with a special look at the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses," when speaking of accusations of deliberate mistranslation in the NWT he states that “the immediate context is the final criterion for what words should be used....[and the] truth is, the NWT translators time and again appeal to the context.” pg. 97 So his unbiased evaluation of the text indicates accusations of deliberate mistranslation are false. The translations used are perfectly acceptable renditions. The credentials of these three are often attacked, since the views of the Jehovahs Witnesses are not popular. But does popularity mean opposing views are correct? Does the fact that there are very few supporters of the New World translation of the Holy Scriptures make it inaccurate? The writers allude to a sacred secret of the Bible, that is not well known in the world today or not applied, for many men bow to the authorities and educated men, looking for spiritual guidance. Yet the Bible tells us that such men do not necessarily have accurate knowledge of God or His ways. In fact it was these men that had Christ impaled and tortured. The apostle Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 1:19-2:5 ". . .for it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.” 20 Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing. 22 For both the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ impaled, to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness; 24 however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because a foolish thing of God is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God is stronger than men. 26 For YOU behold his calling of YOU, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; 28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, 29 in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God. 30 But it is due to him that YOU are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom; 31 that it may be just as it is written: “He that boasts, let him boast in Jehovah.” 1 And so I, when I came to YOU, brothers, did not come with an extravagance of speech or of wisdom declaring the sacred secret of God to YOU. 2 For I decided not to know anything among YOU except Jesus Christ, and him impaled. 3 And I came to YOU in weakness and in fear and with much trembling; 4 and my speech and what I preached were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a demonstration of spirit and power, 5 that YOUR faith might be, not in men’s wisdom, but in God’s power." If we read further in 1 Corinthians, 3:18-23, it says "18 let no one be seducing himself: If anyone among YOU thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.” 21 Hence let no one be boasting in men; for all things belong to YOU, 22 whether Paul or A•pol´los or Ce´phas or the world or life or death or things now here or things to come, all things belong to YOU; 23 in turn YOU belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God." It is clear from the Bibles teachings that men with degrees, diplomas, positions of authority or rulers in this system of things, do not have God's favour, they do not have any special insight into His thinking or His Word, the Bible. It was, after all, the Scribes and Pharisees, the ones who studied the Septuagint and Pentateuch, knew and taught all the prophecies of the coming Messiah; it was the well respected theologians and experts who had Jesus killed. The same is true of earlier prophets as well. Was Lot’s ministry well accepted in Sodom and Gomorrah? Did the educated men of those cities respect his opinions? Did they heed his warnings? Or do you think they ridiculed him as uneducated? Did the majority of the population believe his teachings, and did he have the support of local government or secular authorities, teachers and professors? Was his interpretation of the Pentateuch the commonly accepted one? What of Noah? Was he a well respected city official, a minister, a priest? Did he have degrees from local universities or those abroad? Did the majority of his contemporaries respect his opinion, respect his authority given to him by the teachers in the synagogues of his day? Ridiculed by the men of his day, he alone survived the deluge with his family. The teachings and philosophies of the authorities and educated men, though well accepted and popular, led those educated men to destruction. David was a shepherd. A lowly man of the field, with no college education or fancy teachings, no degrees or guidance from the learned men. What is it that God said about him? That he does not examine the outward appearance of a man, but what is on the inside. Yet David was annointed by God as the king over the nation of Israel. (Exodus 4:10) 10 Moses now said to Jehovah: “Excuse me, Jehovah, but I am not a fluent speaker, neither since yesterday nor since before that nor since your speaking to your servant, for I am slow of mouth and slow of tongue.” Was Moses a well educated man? He certainly may have been, he was raised in Pharaoh’s house and likely received a pretty good education by the standards of his time. But even with that education, his opinions were not well respected, they were not popular with the Egyptian government, the authorities of his time. Likely he faced ridicule, in fact the Pharaoh openly mocked Jehovah and Moses as His messenger, asking “who is Jehovah, that I should follow him? Pharaoh was actually considered to be the living God to the Egyptians. What weight did Moses carry when confronting the God of the most powerful empire of it’s day? When discussion ensued regarding this amongst the populace, what do you suppose the news that spread said. Did it say he was an expert on religion, and that the entirety of the Egyptian royal house was in error, along with all his sorcerers, priests and prophets? It is much more likely that the news media of that time, word of mouth, said he was insane, misinterpreting signs and portents, deliberately lying and deceitful. They most certainly said he was wrong, and faced with the fact of the plagues apparent to all, the only reason they could provide was the weight of their authority, ad hominem attacks and ridicule. What of Job? His friends came to comfort him with the teachings of the Pentateuch, citing scriptures and trying to apply them to his affliction. The majority of them, with the generally accepted interpretation of the day, accused him based on scripture. What was the end result? Jehovah cursed them, because Job was faithful, and though he was alone in his interpretation of scripture, he was still right. Of course there is the example of Jesus himself. Was he the son of a wealthy or influential family? Was he an accredited scholar, a professor or clergyman? Not at all! He was the son of a carpenter. He was himself a carpenter. There is no indication at all that he was in any way extraordinary as regards his level of education or political ties. But were his teachings popular? Well accepted by the learned men of the Pharisees, the Saducees, scribes, lawmakers and religious officials of that time? Most definitely not! These educated men, whose philosophies were the standard of the day actually sought to kill him, many times bringing him before the courts because his teachings were sacrilegious, blasphemous and heretical. So just how was he welcomed in the synagogues? The Bible says at Mark 6:2-3 “…he started teaching in the synagogue; and the greater number of those listening were astounded and said: “Where did this man get these things? And why should this wisdom have been given this man, and such powerful works be performed through his hands? 3 This is the carpenter the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon, is it not? And his sisters are here with us, are they not?” So they began to stumble at him.” Yes, not just a few, but the “greater number” were stumbled because he was not a highly esteemed theologian or interpreter, he was not a master linguist or philologist. He was by all outward appearances an ordinary man, with no special training or accreditations. The apostles were mostly common men as well, some were fishermen, and other worked as tent makers to support themselves while ministering to the people of the nations. So just what was it that made Jesus, and these other men, so special? In contrast to the expert theologians, translators and religious historians, it was his humility. When tempted by Satan he did not lean upon his own understanding, or reply from his own thoughts. No, with every temptation he replied by citing scriptures. By looking to the Bible for his guidance he was able to resist the Devil. He explained that he did “nothing of his own initiative, but did the will of Him that sent me” Similarly we can avoid straying from the path leading to life if we look to the Bible for our understanding, and not to oursleves. Knowledge and the wisdom of God was given to the weak, to the humble and to the needy. Let no man fool or intimidate you, either with degrees, PhDs or diplomas, fancy speech or condescending attitudes, authority or powerful associations. Understanding belongs to those following the Word of God, not those who debate over the words within it. Now, I do not abhor education, I am not recommending to anyone that they avoid it. I would rather tell you to strive for accurate knowledge, to pursue it relentlessly. What I am saying is that you can not find it simply by following the world rulers and philosophies common to this system of things. Often really beneficial teachings are the ones which are frowned upon or overlooked by the majority of the world. Do not put your trust in earthling man in whom there is no salvation. Rather, put your trust in God, the only one that can deliver us, and look to Him for guidance. If we trust this worlds philosophies and teachings we may not be working in harmony with Gods commandments. If we find that everyone is agreeing with us, we may be on the wrong path, ”. . .because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.” (Matthew 7:13-14) If we trust religious leaders of this time for our spiritual guidance and interpretation of the scriptures, or listen only to popular opinion, we may find ourselves starving for nourishing spiritual food, rather taking in what is bad, for the Bible tells us “. . .the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) We must have only one authority, Jehovah’s appointed King and High Priest, Jesus. His instructions for us are laid down in the Bible, and they are trustworthy, regardless of the interpretations made by men. The Bible is inspired by God, he is able to make it say exactly what he wants, regardless of changes in a few words. He has promised that “. . .sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place. . .” (Matthew 5:18) We have the confident assurance of Jesus himself telling us that the laws within the Bible will not pass away, not even a particle of a letter of the Law. Debate over words is senseless and useless, the meaning of them can only be understood by those showing humility, love and a desire to draw closer to God. For these the meanings are made clear, not by their own power or education, but as a free gift from God, the gift of a helper which was sent to guide us. OK, that's all the writing for today. If you got all the way through that then you're a better man than me!

There are. But there are equally credible experts that say it isn't. The only choice you have is to look in your own heart, decide which conclusion you WANT to believe, and choose your facts accordingly. After all, that is what religion is all about.

This question has been posted for over a year, and even the defenders of the NWT have yet to produce even one acceptable reference. I have not answered before because I have never heard of such an expert endorsement, and "I don't know of any" is a pathetic answer. So, instead of "yes, there are" and "no, there are not," here is my challenge: If such an expert exists, please provide a statement like [these are fictitious people invented for example only]: JohnBob X. Smith, PhD Harvard, 1962 in Ancient Greek endorses the NWT in [cite publication] <insert links/references to researchable documentation: identity, credentials, relevant publications> Cynthia Q. Jonesmatthews, PhD Cambridge, 1973 in Biblical Hebrew testifies to the accuracy of the NWT Old Testament in [cite publication] <insert links/references to researchable documentation: identity, credentials, relevant publications> Without this kind of information, answers to this question are not useful. And, by the way, to add credibility to the answer, publications should include non-WatchTower documents. If the NWT is a respectable scholarly work, surely, somewere in the world, there is an honest published expert outside the WatchTower organization. Note: "Professor Benjamin Kedar in Jerusalem" may be a Professor and may be in Jerusalem, but neither piece of information is useful. Of what is he a professor? Engineering? Law? Does he speak English? Is he qualified to read ancient Hebrew? You can know two languages and still be a poor translator... Something like [fictitious] "Roberqa Q. Quiqqly, Professor at the International University School of Hebrew Translation, PhD in Ancient Languages from Jerusalem University, 1971, and author of three widely used English language Ancient Hebrew college textbooks" would be impressive and useful.

Let me try to explain this another way--"God's active force" is an interpretqtion, not a translation. It belongs in a commentary, not something that's called a translation. If it were in a commentary, I as a translator wouldn't be objecting. The Witnesses have the right to their theology and interpretations. But when interpretations, anybody's includiing my own, gets inserted into the Bible, gets inserted into the Bible, I as a translator have to object.

From http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/New_World_Translation/examining_translations.htm While they may never learn the names of their translators, they may be given the names of scholars with quotes favorable toward NWT. Edgar J. Goodspeed, who contributed to the Revised Standard Version, stated in a letter to the Watchtower, dated 8 December 1950, "I am...much pleased with the free, frank, and vigorous translation [NWT]. It exhibits a vast array of sound, serious learning...."4 Yet, when Bill Cetnar from the Watchtower headquarters visited Dr. Goodspeed in 1954 to elicit his full endorsement, Dr. Goodspeed had other comments. Cetnar writes, "Dr. Goodspeed was asked if he would recommend the translation for the general public. He answered, `No, I'm afraid I could not do that. The grammar is regrettable. Be careful on the grammar."5 Nevertheless, the Watchtower still uses Dr. Goodspeed's letter as an endorsement. Robert M. McCoy and Dr. S MacLean Gilmour from the Andover Newton Quarterly are quoted with what sounds like enthusiastic reviews until the context and entirety of their words are read.6 Similarly, Thomas N. Winter from the University of Nebraska gave a glowing endorsement in 1974,7 but on 3 October 1980 he wrote, "I am not happy with the use now being made of the review," and he went on to note a few problems, such as Jesus' words in John 8:58 (which NWT translates as "I have been"). Winter commented, "No way to go here but `I am.'"8 A more recent endorser is Dr. Jason D. BeDuhn, who used the interlinear version of NWT in his course, "The Development of the Jesus Tradition," at Indiana University. In a letter to the Watchtower Society, dated 12 May 1997, he stated that "it is the best interlinear New Testament available," and "it gets past traditional renderings that harmonize, gloss, and over-interpret passages in light of later dogma."9 In other words, NWT appeals to scholars who consider the deity of Christ a later, inserted doctrine. Yet Dr. BeDuhn makes note, "I am sure you are aware of historical objections to the (re)insertion of `Jehovah' into the translation. Of course, no Greek Gospel manuscripts support this, but I will not quibble with you about that"10 (emphasis added). Dr. Benjamin Kedar also endorses the NWT. He made it clear to the Watchtower, however, that he no longer wishes to answer questions concerning his stance.11 His comments are limited to the Old Testament and are not influential concerning the identity of Jesus. Other names produced by the Watchtower are not names of scholars. Perhaps BeDuhn and Kedar are unaware of the lack of credentials that plague this organization's translators. Bill Cetnar explained that of the supposed translators, only F. W. Franz, fourth president of the Watchtower, had any schooling in this area, and his abilities to translate were proven inadequate in a Scottish Court in November 1954.12

Rolf Furuli - "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a special look at the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses" Jason Beduhn - "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament"

Of course, the only reason for translating ruakh elohim as "God's active force" is that the Watchtower teaches that the Holy Spirit IS just an active force. However, the Holy Spirit has these personal attributes: The Spirit speaks, I Tim. 4:1; is a He not an "it" in the original language, John 16:13; speaks saying "I", Acts 10:19-20; gives orders, Acts 16:6-7; predicts or testifies, I Peter 1:11; gives revelations, Luke 2:26; prays for us, Romans 8:26; is a witness, Acts 5:32; hears, understands, and can be lied to, Acts 5:3; may be offended or even "outraged" (New World translation), Hebrews 10:29; can also be grieved and therefore has emotions, Ephesians 4:30; has feelings, Isaiah 63:10; can be blasphemed, Matthew 12:31; createseand makes alive, Job 33:4; consecrates pastors, Acts 20:28; thinks, Romans 8:27; knows, I Corinthians 2:11; teaches, I Cor. 2:13; is revealed in the form of a creature as well as a force, Matthew 3:16. Since the Spirit is divine He can also have divine attributes that we limited human beings can not have--such as being many places at once, as God is.

Would if you were to read this what would you think? "Many shall come to my house, saying, I am a good housekeeper, and shall mislead Arnold my neighbor." What would you think? That's right you would think that I was the one who was the good housekeeper, right? How about if you were to read it this way? Many shall come to my house, saying, 'I am a good housekeeper', and shall mislead Arnold my neighbor. You would think that "many" here was the good housekeeper, right? Oh what a difference quote marks make, eh? It is my understanding that in the old Hebrew manuscript there were no quotation marks used. However, we find quote marks widely used in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures; the Bible commonly used throughout the world by the "Jehovah Witness" denomination. In the Old King James version for example we read in Mark 013:006: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. It does not read: For many shall come in my name, saying, 'I am Christ'; and shall deceive many. But according to the New World Translation it reads: Many will come on the basis of my name, saying, 'I am he', and will mislead many. The quote marks around 'I am he' are not in the original Hebrew text. Therefore it clearly may be misleading in what the Lord may actually be saying here. Lets look at this again: "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." OK, based on what I am reading, there is only one correct understanding and it has possibly a two fold meaning. It is clearly saying that Jesus is not the Christ of this people. At face value, here is the correct interpretation of that verse: Many shall come in His name saying that Jesus is their Christ and they shall deceive many. It should not read: "Many will come on the basis of my name, saying, 'I am he", and will mislead many." That is saying that the many here will proclaim that they are the Messiah or Christ himself! That is not what the Hebrew text is saying as far as the Old King James version is concerned. It appears to me that this New World translation is either a bit out of touch with the truth of God's word or the author knows something that was not included in the King James. But at this point, it is more like a doctrine of man than of God! I understand the verse to perhaps have a two fold meaning: Many false believers shall come in the Lord's name, saying that Jesus is their Christ and shall deceive many. They simply do not believe in the true Jesus or the right Christ. Moreover the New World Translation gives us a related scripture verse to support that one. Matthew 24:15: "Therefore, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing" that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place," (let the reader use discernment). As you can see, the authors have changed that verse as well! The Old King James reads this way: 024:015 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Same scripture verse but a different teaching. Revelation 022:018 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 022:019 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

&quot;Traduttore, traditore." Apparently.

Yes, in his outstanding book “ TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" Author: Jason David BeDuhn he compares varoius Bible translations for their accuracy. In summary, he says: "... it can be said that the NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared...the translators managed to produce works relatively more accurate and less biased than the translations produced by multi-nominational teams, as well as those produced by single individuals." "Jehovah's Witnesses... really sought to re-invent Christianity from scratch... building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there. Some critics, of course, would say that the results of this practice can be naive. But for Bible translation, at least, it has meant a fresh approach to the text, with far less presumption than that found in may of the Protestant translations." Author: Jason David BeDuhn is the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins form Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in s Comparative Study of Religions form Indiana University, Bloomington. The Nine English Translations Compared in BeDuhn's book are: - The King James Version (KJV) - The Amplified Bible (AB) - The Living Bible (LB) - The New American Bible (NAB) - The New American Standard Bible (NASB) - The New International Version (NIV) - The New World Translation (NW) - The (New) Revised Standard Version (NRSV) - Today's English Version (TEV)

I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but I am a strong believer in God. I have read, first, the KJV, and currently have an ESV, and NWT. Of the three, the KJV is the one I enjoy the least for obvious reasons. I enjoy the NWT the most mainly for it's old testament. Jehovah God is one. The fact that the KJV and ESV totally ignore and chose to edit his name out leave me with some questions as to whether the translators of the book were bias. However, it is commmon knowledge that watchtower has added the Tetragrammaton into the NT where it does not belong. Doing so is both ignorant and irresponsible, but I still don't see how it makes such a big impact on the overall purpose. I recommend that you all do some research and reading on the book of John and John the evangelist, the writer of both the book of revelation and Book of John. Read the 3 synoptic Gospels, then read the Gospel of John. Is this the same Jesus I read about in the previous three? Where is my humble Jesus that always spoke in Parables? He is no more in the book of John. He is totally different, cocky to say the least. If you were to read the bible and not read the book of John, you wouldn't have any inclination that Jesus is God, but if you read John and you believe what it teaches, then by all means, he makes it clear that Jesus is our God Jehovah manifest in the flesh. My point is, people will believe what they want to believe. If you want to believe that Jesus is God, you will very much enjoy the book of John, and take it for every word it's worth. If you want to believe that Jesus was just a humble man that the other 3 synoptic gospels spoke of, that's what you're going to believe. Notice the "3" synoptic gospels. The book of John is not considered a synoptic gospel for many reasons. Many question the reliability of it and say it, along with revelations, is the writing of a mentally ill man, and that the book should not be taken for a reliable source of information. Many believe that the book of John shouldn't be in the bible. When I first read the book of John, I was floored. As I stated before, it wasn't the same Jesus I had read about before. The Jesus I knew always spoke in parables, he had a father whom he worshipped, he felt pain, hunger, thirst, temptation, etc.. You read it and you realize what a "man" he was. But not in John. I believe that Jesus is the begotten son of God, but the 1 eternal God himself, he is not. It isn't denying him, he is Gods son and every bit important to me as the Father, but I can't find in the bible, outside the book of John, that Jesus and Jehovah are one in the same. Xander, what you need to understand, that if you are a witness, you will always be ridiculed and hated. In Matthew Jesus (who's name translates to Jehovah saves) "All men shall hate you on account of my name." If you so much as bring up the name Jehovah, people will fill with all kinds of negative emotion. Angst, anger, annoyance, etc... They can deny it, but it's true. The first thing that comes to mind are JW's. Why are they filled with these emotions when they hear the name? I think the answer is that Satan hates the name Jehovah, it is the reason for his fear and the reason that he trembles, and this is his world. No other religion in the world, not the mormons, not the catholics (who have a long history of violence and corruption), is as much hated as the JW's. I'll never totally understand why, I've talked to a few, and they seem very nice and educated. My grandmother, since I was very young, has tried to forcefeed me that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. But when you read the bible, it says otherwise. When I ask, "Who did Jesus ask 'father, have you forsaken me?'" Her response? It was his flesh that asks. Doesn't add up. Also, "When the clouds opened up, and light shined from the heavens and a dove flew from the sky and a voice said to Jesus, 'You are my son, with you I am pleased.'" Let me get that straight... So God opened up the clouds, and said to god, God, you are my son, me (god), with who I am please. There is no use in arguing. Fighting over religion fills people with negative feelings. Read the bible, ignore idea's people put in your mind, find your own way. The negative feelings will only hurt you, and Jesus IS in heaven at the right hand of God, probably shaking his head at us all right now. Probably asking his father why he had to die for idiots like us.

This answer has gotten a lot of good technical treatment. While i've studied just enough Hebrew and Greek to be dangerous, i've taken another, less scholarly approach to my critical look at the NWT. I was raised in a house with several Bibles, primarily the KJV, ASV, Douay and NWT. While the NWT was my most used and best liked, i have never assumed that it is "The Bible" just because it came from JW's or because it was my mother's favorite. (I became JW, not to follow a parent, but after a comprehensive search. More on that another time.) My approach has been to spread all the Bibles i could find in whatever languages i read on a table and start to compare them. Likely 95% of the NWT agrees very well with mainline translations. What concerned me has been where it differs. Here is my contention: If the NWT cannot find any support for a rendering among any reputable translator or committee, its rendering is suspect. With about 30 translations, versions, interlinears and parallel Bibles on the table, i've looked at controversial passages such as Hebrews 1:8; Philippians 2:5, 6; John 1:1; 8:58; Colossians 1:15 and many others. Without fail at least one and often more translator will corroborate the NWT. For example, you will find 'I existed before Abraham' at John 8:58. I don't have my work in front of me, but, upon request, i will give specific examples. What this tells me is that the NWT renderings are plausible. It doesn't prove that they are right, but it proves that they are not just the product of bias or doctrinal stubbornness. After years of serious testing and questioning, i still have confidence in the NWT, not because i want to hold onto it, but because other witnesses (not Witnesses) have given me reason to see that men of good conscience have come to the same conclusions.

editing the Bible has always been and always will be, that is man, Jesus says there will always be stumbling blocks and we should never make a brother stumble. I like the NWT and I do think JW's are by the Bible as anyone can get. But I have decided that, you cannot edit "The Ten Commandments" or the love one has in their heart for God. I love "Sermon on the Mount." Everytime I read I learn something different.Little things like John the Baptist and Jesus were kin, cousins I think. When you really want to know what it says God will help. It is very profound but but "the Ten Commandments" are simple. Jesus showed us how to strive to be.

yes I would like to point out that people hate the JW's why? because as Jesus did, they teach the truth which goes against the teachings of mainstream religions, (Matthew 15:9) 9 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’ but thats easily understood (Daniel 12:9-10) . . .And he went on to say: “Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of [the] end. 10 Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will certainly act wickedly, and no wicked ones at all will understand; but the ones having insight will understand. ” You see the truth about the sacred secret of God has been given to the ones who deserve it. (Matthew 5:11-12) 11 “Happy are YOU when people reproach YOU and persecute YOU and lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against YOU for my sake. 12 Rejoice and leap for joy, since YOUR reward is great in the heavens; for in that way they persecuted the prophets prior to YOU. Yes those who proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom of God will be hated Christendom has apostasized herself (2 Thessalonians 2:3-5) . . .Let no one seduce YOU in any manner, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. 4 He is set in opposition and lifts himself up over everyone who is called “god” or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god. 5 Do YOU not remember that, while I was yet with YOU, I used to tell YOU these things? (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) . . .But the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents 10 and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved. 11 So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Corinthians 11:12-15) . . .Now what I am doing I will still do, that I may cut off the pretext from those who are wanting a pretext for being found equal to us in the office of which they boast. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness. But their end shall be according to their works. see Mt 7:13, 21-23 these so called christians seem to be the majority not the minority now remmeber how Jesus followers were few the minority not the majority now as pointed out by the experts, we have the most accurate Bible translation, Jehovah's Witnesses is the hardest religion to get into & the hardest one to stay in. Not all who become witnesses remain, they are pulled away by the world.

This is a prime example of how a bible should NOT be translated. According to authoritative publications, the so-thought unnamed committee who made this mess of pottage had no qualifications in either Hebrew or Greek. The closest was George Gangas, a Greek, who was a short-order cook. Franz, president of the Watchtower Society, also a 'translator'(you should excuse the expression), was caught on the stand in Court as a perjurer, claiming he could read Hebrew, and when presented one sentence in Hebrew from Genesis 1, could not read it. Earlier, the cult's founder, Russell, was charged a perjurer when he claimed he could read Greek when he couldn't. I think I know why the translators were unnamed! Who'd admit to it? The late Bruce M. Metzger(personally known to me) was the most respected Bible translator in the twentieth century. Check on his evaluation of the NWT. It is also well known that the Watchtower people still publish a hardcover edition of the respected American Standard Version of 1901, and they also in the not-too-distant-past ued the KJV. The NWT Old Testament isn't so bad(despite atrocious grammar and syntax), but when we get to the New? Gevalt! It has been translated to comply with the doctrines and teachings of the cult of Jehovah's Witnesses. Doubt me? Check any Greek version of the New Testament or an Interlinear. This book will always be like the bad penny---it keeps showing up. Too bad. It has misled many. If you are looking for a Bible, check out a good, formal-equivalence one such as the English Standard Version, the New American Standard, the New King James, the Revised Standard Version, or the Holman Christian Standard Version.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm

There are a scarce few, however most experts by far, have indicated that it is not that accurate. It is well known that it misses the mark on who Jesus's is, his divinity is almost completely missed. Also, the Holy Spirit is not correctly interpreted at all, and as such, those that adhere to the nwt bible are not filled with the Holy Spirit. The Scarce few are of course highlighted by the JW's, but anyone with even an internet connection can find out hundreds of sites that go into the differences of the scriptures the JW expound. Also, those that have come out of JW's have posted alot of info on how to get the facts straight. Bottom line: an incorrect version - even a subtly 'off' version, leads to an incorrect view of God, heaven, his Son, and ultimately your spiritual life. Not a good idea. Ask a diver if he's ok having slightly 'off' air in his diving tanks when he's putting his life on the line going down for a deep dive. Not a frikin chance.

Only one: Jason David BeDuhn, professor at Northern Arizona State University at Flagstaff. See his book, Truth in Translation. The JWs claim that other scholars have praised this version highly; however it is suggested that you link on to What The Scholars Really Said, to find out the truth.

I think you all consider William Tyndale's translation. The LIVING BIBLE... He IS the FIRST to bring the ENGLISH translation to the Laymen. Just read about him on the internet and it will be enough said when you see all of WHO he was, How capable he was,WHAT he went through to give us the Bible, Why he wanted us to have the WORD, his VOW when he was on trial, how he was burned at stake for giving us the Bible....He died a MARTYR for God... God used him to keep HIS WORD going

The NWT Translation Committee In an article on the NWT, one WBTS book states that it is "a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah" (Reasoning From the Scriptures, 276). One might naturally ask, "If that is so, just who were the translators on the committee who were so qualified to make such an audacious claim to be 'anointed?'" Surprisingly, in the same book, in direct answer to that question, the following statement is made: "When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request" (Reasoning, 277). The truth is that nowhere in the NWT or any WBTS literature are the names of the translators revealed; and while it is true that some other Bible translations such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) do not list their translators in their editions, only the NWT and the WBTS will not send the names to curious inquirers upon written request. So, do we know who the NWT translators were? The answer is yes, we do know, despite the WBTS' refusal to release the names. Raymond Franz is a former member of the WBTS Governing Body. In his book, Crisis of Conscience, he states that the translation committee consisted of Governing Body members George Gangas, Albert Schroeder, Fredrick Franz, and then WBTS President, Nathan Knorr. "Fred Franz (Raymond Franz's uncle, who later became WBTS President), however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew" (Crisis of Conscience, 50). The fact is, none of the members of the NWT committee, including Fredrick Franz, were really qualified to make a scholarly translation from the original languages. No one on the committee had more than a rudimentary familiarity with Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. This lack of expertise is clearly revealed in the poor, biased quality of the NWT's renderings of many key biblical passages.

Do you have a close relationship with anyone whose personal name you do not know? For people to whom God is nameless he is often merely an impersonal force, not a real person, not someone that they know and love and to whom they can speak from the heart in prayer. If they do pray, their prayers are merely a ritual, a formalistic repetition of memorized expressions. True Christians have a commission from Jesus Christ to make disciples of people of all nations. When teaching these people, how would it be possible to identify the true God as different from the false gods of the nations? Only by using His personal name, as the Bible itself does.—Matt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 8:5, 6. Would a translator have any right to restore the name, in view of the fact that existing manuscripts do not have it? Yes, he would have that right. Most Greek lexicons recognize that often the word “Lord” in the Bible refers to Jehovah. For example, in its section under the Greek word Ky´ri•os (“Lord”), Robinson’s A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (printed in 1859) says that it means “God as the Supreme Lord and sovereign of the universe, usually in Sept[uagint] for Heb[rew] יהוה Jehovah.” Hence, in places where the Christian Greek Scripture writers quote the earlier Hebrew Scriptures, the translator has the right to render the word Ky´ri•os as “Jehovah” wherever the divine name appeared in the Hebrew original. Many translators have done this. Starting at least from the 14th century, numerous Hebrew translations were made of the Christian Greek Scriptures. What did the translators do when they came to quotations from the “Old Testament” where God’s name appeared? Often, they felt forced to restore God’s name to the text. Many translations of parts or all of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew contain God’s name. Translations into modern languages, particularly those used by missionaries, have followed this example. Thus many African, Asian, American and Pacific-island language versions of the Greek Scriptures use the name Jehovah liberally, so that readers can clearly see the difference between the true God and the false ones. The name has appeared, too, in versions in European languages. One translation that boldly restores God’s name with good authority is the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. This version, currently available in 95 modern languages, including English, has restored God’s name every time that a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures containing it is quoted in the Greek Scriptures. Altogether, the name appears with a sound basis 237 times in that translation of the Greek Scriptures,and all most 7,000 in all

Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world. Now when they beheld the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were men unlettered and ordinary, they got to wondering. And they began to recognize about them that they used to be with Jesus; HOW ABOUT JUST GOOD OLD SIMPLE ENGLISH!! Let Jason Beduhn speak the greek, and let God be found true though every man be a liar. (For the record I have 12 different translations one of which is a version of the bishop Bible? I wonder who authorized it? A Greek KING? and yes I AM unlettered..... get it? Now thats funny i don't care who you are

Seriuosly, anyone can write anything in a book. However, not one Greek scholar of any renown or reputation believes the NWT is even remotely accurate. It is filled with "criminal" bias. Even the leading scholars whom they qoute to support their positions are on record stating they are misquoted and they by no means support the translation as an acceptable body of work with any scholarly merit. None of the translators even know the languages. Check their credentials.

Seriuosly, anyone can write anything in a book. However, not one Greek scholar of any renown or reputation believes the NWT is even remotely accurate. It is filled with "criminal" bias. Even the leading scholars whom they qoute to support their positions are on record stating they are misquoted and they by no means support the translation as an acceptable body of work with any scholarly merit. None of the translators even know the languages. Check their credentials. Above i spelled seriously wrong, that should be enough to disqualify my answer right? So i guess that God was unable to protect His word for 1850 odd years until the NWT set us straight? All these centuries where have the "true" christians ( JW's) been? GOD DID NOT CARE ABOUT THEM ENOUGH TO HAVE ANY REPRSENTITIVES AROUND?

They cannot even put the name Holy Bible on the cover. They're too many small changes that change the meaning of the sentence. Like adding an a , or a few words just to detour people from the whole truth. It is not even a Bible it is the new world translation of Holy Scriptures.

I have spent all my spare time in the past several months comparing translations, studying Greek and consulting various lexicons and concordances. Something interesting has happened. The fact emerges that a body of respected and trusted conservative Protestant scholars have endorsed NWT. I haven't read an official statement to that effect, but the message is clear from their work. Don't take my word for this. If you honestly want an answer to the above question, try this: Obtain a copy of NASB and one of NWT. Now, don't get just any edition of either. NASB comes in an wonderful edition called "Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible" edited by Spiros Zodhiates. The definitive edition of NWT is the 1984 "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures-with References". You can request a copy from www.watchtower.com or at a local Kingdom Hall. If you get the compact NASB and the regular edition NWT (both formatted for economy and mass distribution), you will find great agreement, but also differences that the editions don't explain. Now, here's the big point: Get the expanded editions of both translations and study them side-by-side. Check the textnotes (NASB's are in the center column with the cross-references, the footnotes being commentary and NWT's being footnotes, including reference to appendices). These textnotes offer a wealth of literal renderings and alternate translations. The NASB edition is keyed to Strong's and contains lexical helps in back. NWT's textnotes often give the Hebrew and Greek words and exactly which ancient texts use which word. Okay, that wasn't the big point. The big point is this: Over 90% of what i've compared lines up (almost) exactly. Many whole passages are word-for-word identical. Others have tiny distinctions: will/shall, go up/ascend, disgrace/shame, the list of synonyms are endless. Often NASB opts for simpler English, though sometimes the reverse is true. Amazingly often the text rendering in one is the textnote rendering in the other. Both translations render 'Sheol' consistently as such, letting the reader grasp the significance. I actually prefer NASB in a few instances. Where the Hebrew parallels sheohl and avadohn, NASB renders avadohn as Abaddon (textnote: place of destruction) and NWT renders it place of destruction (textnote: Heb. avadohn). The main text seems the place for the name. More often, i think NWT places the better choice in the main text, but that's just me. In a few instances, especially universally regarded difficult passages, the meanings are quite different. The 2 translations plainly say 2 different things. That's where i dig into the commentaries, lexicons, concordances and a multitude of translations. I find two things: plausible arguments for both renderings and a split among Protestant, Catholic, Eastern, Jewish and unreligious translators, whether individuals or committees. Of those few instances, even fewer affect doctrine or practice. In most of those cases i will tentatively applaud NWT for leaving ambiguous Greek statements ambiguous in English, rather than moving out of translation into the field of exegesis. I'm saddened that the wonderful NASB has bowed to ecclesiastical pressure and Jewish superstition in removing the divine name from its rightful place, failing in its first aim to be 'true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek'. Otherwise, it's amazingly good. I find it almost impossible to study without both fine translations in front of me. This has turned into a treatise, but to sum up in a few words: in practice, if not in statement, the NASB TC as stated that NWT is highly accurate and scholarly. To say otherwise would be to say that their own fails as well.

&ldquo;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) 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 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.

The NWT was written to fit a preconceived doctrine as such I know of no scholar who would recommend it. The Jehovah Witnesses primary scholar was Mr Franz a life time Witness and as such it was made to agree at least in most places with the doctrines given by Mr Russell and the Judge with few changes.