- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I'm sorry Phoenix, but you are being lied to:
Quote Quote What resulted was just what the WT wanted all along I suppose, an extremely biased paraphrase, doctored to endorse WT doctrines. Isaiah 'supposes' wrong. JW's have a history of making changes or alterations in their beliefs when the Bible shows that past beliefs weren't quite correct. If we stubbornly hold to our beliefs and wrote a Bible to support those beliefs, we must a done an extremely bad job.
Isaiah tends to know extremely little outside of his field of trinitarian thought. I would say that the NWT has among the least bias of any Bible.
For all the points that Is 1:18 might mention, see:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm
“Atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate” may be what some call the NWT, but such a characterization is completely erroneous. Nearly every message I have received since the Watchtower article came out has claimed that “all reputable scholars,” “every Greek or biblical scholar,” etc. has condemned the NWT. It often sounds like people are getting this quote from the same source. But whatever the source, it is a lie. I have looked into the matter, and found almost no reviews of the NWT in academic journals. Most date from the 50s and 60s (the NWT has been improved since then). This kind of blanket condemnation of the NWT does not exist, for the most part because biblical scholars are far too busy to review WBTS publications which are considered outside of academic interest. It is simply something we don't pay attention to. I would welcome the names of any scholar who has written a review of the KIT or NWT; I am looking for these reviews, which seem few and far between. For [this]characterization to be correct, [a critic] would have to point out places in the NWT where the translators deliberately give a false meaning for a word or phrase. Not a meaning within the range of possibility for the Greek, but something actually false and ungrammatical. Despite dozens of contacts in the last month, no one has yet supplied a single example which shows deliberate distortion (and I have checked many passages suggested to me). The fact is that the NWT is what I call a “hyper-literal” translation, it sticks very close to the Greek, even making awkward English reading. There are a few places where the translators seem to have gone far out of their way, sometimes to clarify something suggested by the Greek, often for no apparent reason (maybe my ignorance of fine points of Witness theology prevents me from grasping what they are up to). And if you look at any other available translation, you will find similar instances where interpretation has been worked into the text in a way that stretches, if it does not violate the Greek. Every translation is biased towards the views of the people who made it. It is hard to judge who is right and who is wrong simply by comparing versions. You must go back to the Greek.”
Jason Beduhn on “worship” proskuneo
http://www.europa.com/~lynnlund/truthintrans.htmI believe that this is much like the evolutionary profferssors. You have to agree with them to be in their club. Anyone outside of the establishment is considered a quack and not taken seriously. But of course, evolution isn't a fact. It is something the ones who apprently know what they are talking about teach and their students teach it and you must learn it to be taken seriously.
It is the same with these Greek scholars. You are not a “real” scholar unless you accept what we (the old trinitarians) say.If you have any accusations against the NWT, please state them PHOENIX and I would be more than happy to dispell any myths or lies.
is 1:18 wrote that it is:
Quote extremely biased paraphrase
The fact that he called it a paraphrase when most scholars call it awkward to read because it isn't a paraphrase at all should make you seriously question Is 1:18's words. Wickipedia describes it as “literal; semi-legal.”
Are the scholars whom he supports right or wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….slation
The reason our Bible is sometimes called a hard read is that it is meant as a study Bible.Wikipedia:
“The New World Translation is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase.[2] To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing. Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose, whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….slationSo it's odd that you'd have Is 1:18 saying it's a paraphrase when at the same time his scholars are attacking it for being wooden, stiff because it is what Jason debuhn describes as “hyper-literal.”
Back in 1950 the New World Translation Committee said,in answer to the charges in regard to the translators wishes to remain anonymous;
“The true scholarship behind the New World Translation will make itself known, not by the disclosure of the names of the translating committee, but by the faithfulness of the translation to the Greek text and by the reliable help it gives toward understanding God's written revelation to men. We are not troubled, therefore, by your thrust: “Albeit the identity of the translators is being withheld at their own request- they are not likely to make much impression on either Catholic or Protestant scholars. It is no wonder that the translators wish to remain unknown.”And in 1974 in The Watchtower, p768 again addressed this by answering the question of why did the members of the NWTTC wish to remain anonymous:
” ….These translators were not seeking prominence; they did not desire to draw attention to themselves. In the spirit of “doing all things for God's glory,” they wanted the reader to base his faith on God's Word, not on their worldly qualifications. (1 Cor. 10:31) Other translation committees have taken a similar view. The jacket of the Reference Edition (1971) of the New American Standard Bible states: “We have not used any scholar's name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God's Word should stand on its merits.””Here is what the Wickipedia says:
UNDER JW’S, IN THE CONTROVERSY SECTION:
“Critics have also attacked the New World Translation, the translation of the Bible published by Jehovah's Witnesses. They state that the group has changed the Bible to suit their doctrine, and that the translation contains a number of errors and inaccuracies.[99] Scholarly opinion on the quality of the New World Translation is divided, however.”If scholarly opinion is divided, then there would be some scholars on both sides. Is 1:18 presents another false
picture.Jason BeDuhn compared 9 major translations, not with each other, but with the original Greek.
These include:
King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation.
it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include: John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1. Also explored are passages involving “prostration” or “worship,” gendered language, the “holy spirit,” and the use of “Jehovah.”The following is taken from:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl….ook.htm“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.”
This website also quotes him as saying:
“My research has turned up real howlers in ALL of the translations listed above, the NWT included. But statistically the NWT ranks near the top of the comparison in its accuracy. The NAB also scores rather well. While the “Living Bible” and the TEV (“Good News”) Bible rank near the bottom, not because they are paraphrases, but because they introduce different meanings to the text they are supposed to be making clear to the general reader.
I have no personal stake in which Bible emerges as most accurate. My only stake is in informing the public about how theological bias has colored the translations they are using, and in providing them with tools to help them understand what the text behind the translations actually means. This is my job as a biblical scholar…..”I guess I should mention that Jason Debuhn is a Greek scholar and Associate Professor of Religious Studies Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion Northern Arizona University. He holds a B.A. in Religious studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, and M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. He is the author of many articles in the areas of Biblical Studies and Manichaean Studies, and of the book, The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), winner of the “Best First Book” prize from the American Academy of Religion.
Wickipedia notes the following:
“Some scholars have defended the translation, to some degree.[24]”. . . .
“24. Alan S. Duthie stated that the “Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT, which is certainly not 'filled with the heretical doctrines' …even though a few aberrations can be found. …Some have to condemn out of hand any version made by Jehovah's Witnesses…because they must be full of heresies…It is true that there are some heretical doctrines to be found in NWT (eg. the incoherent polytheism in Jn.1:1,… but the percentage of the whole Bible thus affected… does not reach even 0.1% of the whole, which is very far from 'full'. How To Choose Your Bible Wisely, Alan S. Duthie. pp. 30, 216. Jason BeDuhn stated “While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said the NW[T] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.” Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2004 p.163; J. D Phillips stated, “You have done a marvelous work…”; Allen Wikgren referred to it as “Independent reading of merit”; Benjamin Kedar , “ I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that [the OT] 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 … I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.”; S. Maclean Gilmore, “The New Testament edition was made by a committee….that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.” The Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966 Vol. 7, #1 p. 25,26; C. Houtman , in discussing translator bias stated “the [NWT] of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift #38 1984 p.279-280; William Carey Taylor stated the NT of the NWT contains “considerable scholarship” The New Bible Pro and Con, 1955 p.75; Edgar Goodspeed, Robert M. McCoy, Steven T. Byington, Alexander Thompson, James Parkinson, and Thomas N. Winter also give favorable mention of the NWT.”
]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….B]Anyway, enough for now.
I have a NWT, there are differences, but that's ok. Even went to JW for a while. Also studied the book of Mormon, and attended that church.
Have King James, Have the Catholic bible. What I use most is the NIV.
We each have to pray to the Lord for His Holy Spirit to teach us, and then read, study, and pray.
We all have differences in our religions, but we all have similarities in our faith.
Be blessed.
HarmonyQuote an extremely biased paraphrase –Is 1;18, a couple pages back.
This is so incorrect I don't know where to start.
Whereas many Bible's that people quote from do paraphrase, the NWT is a highly literal, even described as “hyper-literal” translation that is so literal it's often attacked by those same scholars that Is 1:18 quotes at being wooden, hard reading, etc.
“I understand that a group of Bible scholars made comparison of various Bible translations. Was the New World Translation included in this study?
“It appears that what your letter inquires about is a book written by Professor Ernest Cadman Colwell, entitled “What Is the Best New Testament?” This book is published by the Chicago University Press and was first printed in 1952. In 1947 Professor Colwell made a study of a number of translations and put them to the test as to sixty-four citations in the book of John. The book contains what Professor Colwell considers the correct rendering of each of those sixty-four citations. The New World Translation was not released until 1950, hence Professor Colwell could not include this translation in his list of tested ones.
However, if any reader will look up what Professor Colwell has to say about these sixty-four citations and will compare these with the New World Translation he will see that the New World Translation merits a score of sixty-four along with Dr. Goodspeed's translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which the book gives a perfect score of sixty-four. Colwell's book being first published in 1952, it was not available until two years after the release of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which occurred in 1950 at Yankee Stadium. Consequently the New World Bible Translation Committee did not have Colwell' s book for reference when work on the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was being done.”
Question From Readers, The Watchtower 1963, p.95How interesting that Colwell's rule is the very rule used or misused by “scholars” to disprove that the NWT is grammatically possible.
Again, it is Colwell's rule that is what is primarily used by scholars to argue against the NWT.
So watch this:
What is the Best New Testament: Colwell's Apparatus
Colwell's apparatus was taken from his book, “What Is The Best New Testament” University of Chicage Press, 1951.
Colwell's Rule of Bible Translations
Versions in bold italics are those Colwell had printed, the others are added by me using the same criteria.
Translation Agrees with the Critical Text/Agrees with the later Textus Receptus/Other
New World Translation 64 0 0
21st Century NT* 64 0 0
Goodspeed* 64 0 0
Rotherham 62 2 0
Byington/BLE 61 3 0
New Revised Standard 60 3 1
20th Century NT
Lattimore 59 5 0
New American Standard 59 5 0
Westminster 58 6 0
American Standard Ver. 58 6 0
Revised Version 1885 57 7 0
Beck's An American Trans 56 8 0
New Jerusalem Bible 56 8 0
Revised Standard Version 56 8 0
New American Bible 56 7 1
Moffatt 56 7 1
King James Version 0 64 0*The 21st Century NT has 64 points due to its being a dual Literal/Free Translation. Where one side (usually the Free side) had the weaker reading, it was usually corrected by the truer reading on the literal side. At the same time, each side held alone would have done remarkably well, especially the literal side. I think it is encumbent on any Free/Dynamic Equivalent/Paraphrased Bible to include a literal text, if nothing else, than for ease of mind and conscience.
*Colwell chose Goodspeed version as his top New Testament, but I disagree. While taking him at his word for the most part, I cannot agree when it comes to the reading at John 1:18. Colwell's true reading of this verse has “the only begotten God,” a faithful rendering of MONOGENHS QEOS. Goodspeed actually has “divine Only Son,” a weaker reading as it seeks to combine the reading of both the Textus Receptus (TR) and the Westcott and Hort (WH) text. I left it at the top out of respect for Colwell, but it really deserves a reading of 63, placing the New World Translation as the best stand alone version of the New Testament in English.
Below are the 64 scriptures that Colwell uses to determine accuracy in a New Testament. The message being:
*Is your Bible faithful to the best manuscripts available? If not, then why not? What is the motivation behind choosing a weaker reading?*
Why is the TR (Textus Receptus/Received Text) weaker. According to Colwell,“No scholar today employs this text for any scholarly purpose except as he may use it in writing the history of the Greek New Testament. The King James version is undoubtably the most inaccurate English New Testament in common use today…The King James stands at the bottom of the list also in regard to three spurious passages selected as tests (Mk 16:9-20; Jn 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7-8).” pp. 99, 100
The list of 64: TR = Textus Receptus; WH = Westcott and Hort Text
1:15 TR This was he of whom I spake
WH For it was he who said it1:18 TR the only begotten Son
WH the only begotten God1:27 TR He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me
WH He is to come after me1:28 TR Bethabara
WH Bethany1:39 TR Come and see
WH Come and you will see1:49 TR Nathanael answered and saith unto him
WH Nathanael answered1:51 TR Hereafter ye shall see heaven
WH you will see heaven3:15 TR That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal
life
WH That whoever believes in him may have eternal life3:25 TR between John's disciples and the Jews
WH between John's disciples and a Jew4:15 TR come hither to draw
WH come all this way to draw4:35-36 TR they are white already to harvest. And he that reapeth
WH they are white for harvesting. The reaper is already4:42 TR is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world
WH is indeed the Saviour of the world4:43 TR departed thence, and went into Galilee
WH went on to Galilee5:2 TR Bethasda
WH Bethzatha5:3 TR a great multitude
WH a multitude5:3-4 TR waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a
certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first
after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever
disease he had.
WH omitted5:12 TR Take up thy bed, and walk?
WH pick it up and walk?5:16 TR persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because
WH persecute Jesus because5:30 TR of the Father which hath sent me
WH him who hath sent me6:11 TR he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were
set down
WH he distributed to them that were set down6:17 TR Jesus was not come to them
WH Jesus had not yet come to them6:22 TR none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were
entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat
WH no other boat there except one and that Jesus had not gone into the boat
with his disciples6:39 TR of the Father who has sent me
WH of him who has sent me6:40 TR of him who has sent me
WH of may Father6:47 TR He that believeth on me hath everlasting life
WH He that believeth hath everlasting life6:51 TR and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for
the life of the world
WH and the bread that I will give is my flesh, on behalf of the life of the
world.6:58 TR not as your fathers did eat manna
WH not as your fathers ate and died6:63 TR the words which I s
peak
WH the words which I have spoken6:69 TR thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God
WH you are the Holy One of God7:20 TR the crowd answered and said
WH the crowd answered7:26 TR Do the rulers know truly that this is truly the Christ?
WH Do the rulers know that this is the Christ?7:39 TR for not yet was the Holy Spirit
WH for not yet was the Spirit7:40 TR many of the crowd
WH some of the crowd7:53-8:11 TR Pericope Adulterae
WH omits (or in appendix)8:59 TR and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so
passed by.
WH and went out of the temple9:4 TR it is necessary for me to work
WH it is necessary for us to work9:11 TR to the pool of Siloam
WH to Siloam10:4 TR whenever he puts out his own sheep
WH whenever he puts out all his own10:26 TR because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you
WH because ye are not of my sheep10:29 TR he who gives to me is greater than all
WH that which he gives me is greater than all11:30 TR but he was in the place
WH but he was still in the place11:41 TR Then they took away the stone from the place where the corpse was
lying
WH Then they took away the stone12:4 TR Judas Iscariot, Simon's son
Judas Iscariot12:22 TR and again Andrew and Philip
WH Andrew and Philip went12:41 TR These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory
WH These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory12:47 TR my words, and believe not
WH my words, and does not keep them13:18 TR the one who eats bread with me
WH the one who eats my bread14:4 TR you know where I am going and you know the way
WH you know where I am going14:28 TR because I said I am going
because I am going16:4 TR whenever the time comes
WH whenever their time comes16:16 TR and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father
WH and ye shall see me16:27 TR I came out from God
WH I came out from the Father17:11 TR keep those whom you gave me in your name
WH keep them in your name which you gave me17:21 TR let them be one in us
WH let them be “in us”18:20 TR where the Jews always meet together
WH where all the Jews meet together18:40 TR and they all cried out again
WH and they cried out again19:3 TR and they said
WH and they marched up to him saying19:29 TR and they filled a sponge with the wine
WH a sponge soaked with wine19:39 TR a mixture of myrrh and aloes
WH a roll of myrrh and aloes20:16 TR she said to him Rabbouni
WH she said to him in Hebrew Rabbouni20:29 TR Is it because you have seen me, Thomas, that you believe
WH Is it because you have seen me that you believe21:3 TR they went out and embarked in the boat immediately
WH they went out and embarked in the boat21:15 TR Simon son of Jonah
WH Simon son of JohnColwell's apparatus was taken from the Book, “What is the Best New Testament” by E.C. Colwell, University of Chicage Press.
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread…..1323129
from: http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/colwell.hWikipedia:
“The New World Translation is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase.[2] To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing. Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose, whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts.”
]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….slation[/QUOTE]Is 1:18, I'm wondering how you can possibly say or accuse the NWT of being a paraphrase? What are you basing that on?
The following is taken from:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl….ook.htm“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.”
This website also quotes him as saying:
“My research has turned up real howlers in ALL of the translations listed above, the NWT included. But statistically the NWT ranks near the top of the comparison in its accuracy. The NAB also scores rather well. While the “Living Bible” and the TEV (“Good News”) Bible rank near the bottom, not because they are paraphrases, but because they introduce different meanings to the text they are supposed to be making clear to the general reader.
I have no personal stake in which Bible emerges as most accurate. My only stake is in informing the public about how theological bias has colored the translations they are using, and in providing them with tools to help them understand what the text behind the translations actually means. This is my job as a biblical scholar…..”i FOUND this comment most precise:
This fallacy is all too common from critics of the NWT/KIT.
“Argument By Selective Observation:
also called cherry picking, the enumeration of favorable
circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it,
counting the hits and forgetting the misses. For example, a state
boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent about its
serial killers. Or, the claim “Technology brings happiness”. (Now,
there's something with hits and misses.)Casinos encourage this human tendency. There are bells and whistles
to announce slot machine jackpots, but losing happens silently. This
makes it much easier to think that the odds of winning are good.”The critics do the reverse of the above description, they tend to
shout from the rooftops only what they feel are the negative points
of the NWT, all the while ignoring any and all positives (which
undoubtedly outweigh the “negatives”). This is perhaps why many of
the general population believe that the NWT is actually “full of
heresies”, when in actuality the overall differences between it and
the more mainstream bibles is very minimal. This is the fallacy
of “Argument by Generalization”, which means to 'draw a broad
conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases'.
They condemn the entire NWT because of how a handful of verses are
rendered. Imagine if we did that! We wouldn't have too many Bibles
on our shelves.
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread…..tart=15God's name Jehovah/Yahweh appears in the original hebrew text about 7000 times, but the NIV fails to mention it even once. When asked about this, notice what is said and how telling it is.
EDWIN H. PALMER, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote:
“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it?that is how many have bought it to date?and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”
Profit is a low motive for changing this most important text. Even the King James had “Jehovah” 4 times at Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4.Favourable Comments on the NWT.
J.D. PHILLIPS:
(J.D. Phillips was a Church of Christ Minister, schooled in the
original tongues). “Last week I purchased a copy of your New World
Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an
owner. You have done a marvelous work…I was happy, indeed, to see the name
Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I
pray God that your Version will be used to His glory. What you have done for
the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!”ALLEN WIKGREN:
(Allen Wikgren was on the New Revised Standard Version committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek text).
“Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such
as…the Jehovah's Witnesses edition of the New Testament(1950).” (The
Interpreter's Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99)BENJAMIN KEDAR:
(Benjamin Kedar is a professor at Hebrew University in Israel).
“In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew…Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translation. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.”S. MACLEAN GILMORE:
“In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New World Translation of the New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old Testament is now far advanced. The New Testament edition was made by a committee…that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.” (The Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page 25, 26)C. HOUTMAN:
Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias “the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism.” (Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280)WILLIAM CAREY TAYLOR:
(William C. Taylor was a Southern Baptist Minister
schooled in the original tongues). “Just when the infidel universities of this land thought they had laughed out of court the very name Jehovah, up…surges..”Jehovah's Witnesses”. …And with considerable scholarship they get out their own New Testament and lo and behold, they put Jehovah into the New Testament two or three hundred times…It ought to be there [in the entire Bible] many times”(The New Bible Pro and Con, 1955 Page 75)C. HOUTMAN:
Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias “the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism.” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER:
“the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures…the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts…with scholarly ability and acumen.” (The Faith Men Live By, 1954, Page 239)EDGAR J. GOODSPEED:
(Edgar J. Goodspeed was a Professor of Greek at the University of Chicago, and also translated the New Testament portion of “The Bible an American Translation”). “I am…much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.” (Personal Letter to Arthur Goux of Brooklyn Bethel, December 8, 1950; See also Watchtower September 1, 1952 page 541, where Goodspeed is quoted as stating that the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was “an interesting and scholarly work” )ROBERT M. MCCOY:
“The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation.” (The Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, Vol. 3, #3, Page 31)STEVEN T. BYINGTON:
(Steven T. Byington translated the version known as “The Bible in Living English”). “If you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings this is among the richer mines.” (Christian Century, “Review of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, November 1, 1950 page 1296)JASON BEDUHN:
(Jason Beduhn teaches at the University of Indiana). “I have just recently completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of Indiana University, Bloomington, …This is primarily a course in the Gospels. Your help came in the form of copies of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the class. These small volumes were invaluable to t
he course and very popular with my students…Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and by the way, not a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your 'New World Bible Translation Committee' has done its job well. Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our own. Your 'New World Translation' is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations in use today.”THE HARPER COLLINS BIBLE DICTIONARY calls it one of the “major translations of the Bible into English,” along with the Knox translation, the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible and the New English Bible. p. 292
ALEXANDER THOMPSON:
“The translation 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.” (The Differentiator, April 1952, Page 52)EDGAR FOSTER:
(Classics Major, Lenoir-Rhyne College)
“Before I formally began to study Greek, I simply compared the NWT with lexicons,
commentaries, and other translations to try and determine it's accuracy. It passed the litmus test then and it also passes the test now for me…The NWT is a fine translation. In my mind, it is the translation _par excellence_. But I feel just as confortable with an RSV or an NASB. Mostly I prefer my UBS Greek text.”THOMAS N. WINTER:
(Thomas N. Winter taught Greek at the University of Nebraska).
“I think it is a legitimate and highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek. After examining a copy, I equipped several interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary test. After learning the proper pronunciations, a motivated student could probably learn koine from this source alone. …the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate. …In sum, when a witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to place an order.” (The Classical Journal, “The Kingdom Interlinear”, April-May 1974, pages 375, 376) See Also: “Bible Translation how to choose between them” by Alan S. Duthie,(Alan S. Dunthie is a professor at the University of Legon), Page103. Comments by Dr. Rijkel ten KateF.F. BRUCE:
“The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950), followed by the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (1953 and following years), is a publication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., and some of its distinctive renderings reflect the biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah's Witnesses (e.g., “the Word was a god” in John 1:1). Sometimes it renders the text with an un-English literalness (e.g., “Let continue yours what is yours” in Gen. 33:9); at other times we find such colloquial phraseology as “Excuse me, Jehovah” (Ex. 4:10) and “the Nile river will fairly stink” (Ex. 7:18). Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good; thus “a jealous God” is “a God exacting exclusive devotion”, and the Hebrew phrase which the AV variously renders as “on this side Jordan” according to the context appears as “in the region of Jordan” (The English Bible 184).
Edgar's Reply: Bruce's review is not a diatribe against the NWT and his remarks seem to center mostly around the renditions of the NWT as opposed to criticisms of the theological positions of Jehovah's Witnesses. Conversely, it is evident from some of his remarks that Bruce has a problem with certain renderings of the NWT for theological reasons (e.g., John 1:1. But see Greg Stafford “Jehovah's Witnesses Defended”). That being said, Bruce calls attention to the literalness of the NWT, which has been effectively treated by Rolf Furuli in his book “The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation.” Furuli shows the appropriateness of literalness in some contexts and translations. Nevertheless, Bruce also recognizes the skillful work expressed in the NWT. Overall, I think Bruce is as neutral as he can be in his comments on the NWT. Overall they present a somewhat favorable view of this influential work published by the WTBTS.
Edgar Foster
Classics Major
Lenoir-Rhyne CollegeWow David, Lots of important info.
Unfortunately, unless someone is genuinely interested in accurate knowledge they will continue to accuse with false motives.
I of course use the NWT as my backbone to accurate translation, but I certainly enjoy others. I also prefer those that restore God's name Jehovah/Yahweh. I have recently aquired the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible. The Holman Christian Standard Bible is quite good as well. NASB, TM, ALT, ASV…
Collecting translations for personal study has been a great boost for spiritual comprehension.In Christ
Quote Unfortunately, unless someone is genuinely interested in accurate knowledge they will continue to accuse with false motives. Hi Biblio.
I realize that. To think otherwise would be a test in frustration and head banging. I mostly use this site to sharpen my own knowledge–meaning, it forces me to do personal study. I know a whole lot more about the NWT and many other translations than I would have otherwise.
I too have many Bibles. I've recently acquired a KIT, which I was surprised to learn there is a Greek scholar (Jason Debuhn) who uses it to teach Greek.To save you some time,
Is 1:18 and Worshipping Jesus will argue the trinity with you.
Nick is a moderator and T8 is the supermoderator
Both will argue that no one goes to heaven, ever.
They both argue against the trinity, which is what first interested me about this site.
Nick believes in helfire. T8 doesn't.
Both will argue that all organized religion is false, baylon the Great. They do meat together in little groups.david.
Dave,
Thanks for the heads up. What brought you here is what brought me here. There is another web site you might enjoy called scripturaltruths. Do you know of it?
Bibliophile
No. I find that this website takes up way too much of my time as it is. Some of it is time well spent. Some, not.
While it was interesting finding other groups (really, individuals) who don't believe in the trinity, it turns out they don't quite believe just as we do. Something to do with the holy spirit.I also was somewhat suprised to find that besides the popular trinity belief, (with the equal in age, power, knowledge, etc) there is also other trinity beliefs, that hold to the trinity but not this one. They will agree that the Father is greater than the son, etc. But still in the trinity.
As well, while many have tried to show other groups who don't believe in the trinity, there really aren't any. The Mormons for example, you can ask an individual if he believes in the trinity. He'll say “no.” Yet, their official doctrine speaks of a Godhead and other trinitarian ideas.david
Now for some real truth about the corrupt version, the NWT!!!
What leading Greek scholars say about the NWT:
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT “a frightful mistranslation,” “Erroneous” and “pernicious” “reprehensible” “If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.” (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)
Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar, said “it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, “From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.”
“Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation.” (These words were excerpted from the tape, “Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation”, Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
Dr. Julius Mantey , author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT “a shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'”
“I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures…. it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation.” (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
the translators of the NWT are “diabolical deceivers.” (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)Like the Mormon's Bible, the NWT was translated with help of the Holy Spirit: (inspiration)
If you notice the very significant Watchtower quote below, they do not claim the translators knew Greek and Hebrew, only that they were “experienced” and “anointed”. By experienced, they mean that they had been JW's for a long time and would tow the party line. By “anointed”, they mean inspired by the Holy Spirit. So not only do JW's believe that the Watchtower is inspired, they believe the NWT is translated by inspiration. This is the same claim that Joseph Smith made when he translated the Book of Mormon.
“a translation committee of experienced anointed Christians was organized to produce the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures in English.” (Watchtower, October 15, 1997, How the Bible Came to Us, p 11-12)
Mr. Franz was asked to explain how “translations and interpretations of the Bible were made.” Franz replied that they “passed to the Holy Spirit who, invisible, communicates with Jehovah's Witnesses – and the publicity department.” (Franz is the head of the Publicity DepartmentA. The first thing you say to a JW's before you study with them is that you not accept anything from the NWT as authoritative. But they won't accept any other Bible in their heart, even though they might allow you to use one.
The NWT is so extremely biased & perverted, it is questionable if any Hebrew or Greek scholars worked on it. It is nothing more than a sectarian paraphrase, not a translation.
No one uses the NWT except the Jw's.
Jw's on the other hand will use nothing else!It has undergone many revisions.
It is not a translation, but a corrupt sectarian paraphraseB. Unlike every major translation, the NWT paraphrase was produced under a cloud of secrecy.
The Organization made this statement about the NWT: “It is the truth rather than its servant that should be honored and proclaimed,” Russell wrote in 1900, adding: “There is too much disposition to credit truth to the preacher, forgetful that all truth is of God, who uses one or another servant in its proclamation as it may please him.” This is the principal reason why writers and translators of Watch Tower publications, as well as members of the New World Bible Translation Committee, choose to remain anonymous. (Awake, Oct 22, 1989, p. 20)
During a court trial in Glasgow, Scotland in 1954, Franz was asked by the Government lawyer just who the translators were. Franz replied under oath: “That is an absolute secret. It will never be revealed now or even after death.” Only someone with something to hide would be so intent on secrecy. He was asked: “What happens if somebody submits a translation. Does the committee examine it? Mr. Franz: No. I give it my 0.K., then the President, Mr. N. H. Knorr, has the last word.” He was further asked to explain how “translations and interpretations of the Bible were made.” Franz replied that they emanated from God: “passed to the Holy Spirit who, invisible, communicates with Jehovah's Witnesses – and the publicity department.” (Franz is the head of the Publicity Department).C. The NWT translators were: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz, M. Henschel
“Fred Franz 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”; by Raymond Franz; Commentary Press, Atlanta; 1983 edition; footnote 15; page 50.]
Four out of the five men on the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training at all. They had only a high school education. Franz studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, but dropped out after his sophomore year. When asked in a Scotland courtroom if he could translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, Franz replied that he could not. The truth is that Franz was unable to translate Hebrew or Greek.
What we are left with is a very inexperienced translating committee that twisted Scripture to make it fit the Society's doctrine.D. Original published statements to document this can be found in
Raymond Franz', Crisis of Conscience, p. 50 (Franz, Knorr, Schroeder, Gangas),
William Cetnar's, Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses, pp. 68-9 (Franz, Knorr, Schroeder, Gangas, Henschel)
Jerry Bergman's, Jehovah's Witnesses and Kindred Groups, p. 39 (Franz).
Interestingly, both Cetnar and Bergman set forth material that indicates that the well-known Bible Scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed had some input to the NWT. Cetnar indicates that Goodspeed was not terribly pleased with the result.E. Examples of mistranslation within NWT in order to teach their that Jesus was created:
First and most obviously to anyone who has looked at the NWT is the appearance of JEHOVAH in the NT portion over two hundred times where the Greek text has KURIOS (LORD). The second way in which the NWT has systematically abused the divine names or titles is in its handling of text in which Jesus is called God (Isa 9:6; John 1:1,18; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Acts 20:28), of these, the NWT translates four so that Jesus is not called God at all (Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1), and two so that he is “A god” or “god” (John 1:1, 18). The remaining three texts (Isa 9:6; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20), are not mistranslated, but are interpreted so that either Jesus is not called God at all or he is called God only in a lesser sense. In short, wherever possible, the NWT translates texts that call Jesus God in such a way as to keep the text from making that identification!
Genesis 1:2
“Spirit of God” changed to “God's active force.”
The revision modifies the original noun with a more impersonal form as the JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit.Exodus 3:14
“I am” changed to “I shall prove to be.”
The revision
clouds the connection between God's self proclaimed title and Jesus' proclamation of being the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus.Numbers 1:52
“Under his own standard” changed to “by his [three-tribe] division.”
The Hebrew word degal translated as “standard” literally means flag or banner. Since the JWs regard saluting a flag as an act of idolatry, the text has been altered according to their doctrinal bias. (Same revision found in Num. 2:2, 3, 10, 18, 25; 10: 14, 18, 22, 25.)Isaiah 43:10
“Nor will there be one after me” changed to “after me there continued to be none.”
The original future tense of the verb indicates that there will never be another being sharing in God's divinity. The altered tense suggests credibility to the JW doctrine of Jesus' becoming a “mighty god” while still being less than Jehovah in nature. (See the John 1: I discussion below for another expression of this JW distortion.)Ecclesiastes 12:7
“The spirit returns” changed to “the spirit itself returns.”
The passage indicates the return of a human spirit to God after death. Since the JWs believe in an unconscious state after death, “itself' has been inserted to suggest a more impersonal reference to spirit.Matthew 2:11
“Bowed down and worshipped him” changed to “did obeisance to it”
The JWs evade recognizing Jesus as worthy of worship as a divine being by altering the form of honor that he receives from men and angels. The Greek word proskuneo literally means “worship.” The use of “obeisance” is a NWT adaptation. (Same revision found in Matt. 8:2; 9:18, 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; 15:19; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6.)Matthew 5:19
“Least in the kingdom of heaven” changed to “least in relation to the kingdom of the heaven.”
The passage indicates that a disobedient believer who sins can still find forgiveness and eternal life. The JWs believe heaven is reserved for only 144,000 specially designated servants of God. The revision suggests more separation between these groups through a status hierarchy.Matthew 25:46
“Eternal punishment” changed to “everlasting cutting-off.”
The Greek word kolasis translated “punishment” indicates continuous torment, but the NWT revision suggests “termination,” as the JWs promote the doctrine of annihilationism regarding condemned souls.Mark 1:4
“Baptism of repentance” changed to “baptism [in symbol] of repentance. ”
Nothing in the original Greek text justifies the insertion of “in symbol.” The revision undermines the significance of John the Baptist's ministry, the Jewish meaning of baptism and the Christian sacrament of baptism in contrast to the more regimented JW baptism requirements.Luke 12:8
“Acknowledges me” changed to “confesses union with me.”
The addition of “union” suggest something more than what the original Greek actually states and adds further credibility to the NWT distortion presented in John 6:56 below.Luke 23:43
'Today you will be with me” changed to “I tell you today, You will be with me.”
Jesus assured the thief on the cross that their spirits would soon enter the spiritual/heavenly realm together. As the JWs reject the belief in the conscious survival of the human spirit after death, their revision suggests that “today” deals with the time of the statement rather than the relocation of their spirits.John 1:1
“Word was God” changed to “Word was a god.”
The JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the deity of Jesus. The revision asserts that Jesus was someone other than God Himself.John 1:12
“Believe” changed to “exercise faith.”
The orthodox Christian doctrine of spiritual justification and rebirth before God by belief in Jesus is in conflict with the JW doctrine of salvation by works (i.e., obedience to their organization). The revision attempts to describe salvation as a continuous process rather than a radical encounter and transition (Same revision found in John 3:16, 18; 6:29; Rom. 4:3, 10:4, 9, 10.)John 6:56
“Remains in me” changed to “remains in union with me.”
The mystical union between the individual human spirit and the Spirit of Jesus is obscured by restructuring “in” with a compound form. The substitution implies more separation between a Christian and Jesus. (Same revision found in John 14:20; Rom. 8:1, 2, 10; 12:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 1:13*; 2:10, 13, 15, 21, 22; 3:6; Col. 1:14*, 16*, 27; 2:6, 10*, 11, 12*; 3:3; 1 Thes. 4:16; 5:18; 1 John 3:24; 4:4; 5:20. Verses with an asterisk (*) indicate where the revision uses “by means of” or “in relationship to” rather than “in union with.”)John 8:58
“I am” changed to “I have been.”
Same intent as described in Exodus 3:14 above.John 14:14
“IF YOU ask [me] anything in my name, I will do it.”“me” is omitted to deny the fact we pray to Jesus.
John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads; “IF YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it.” The Greek text in the KIT, however, has ME after ask, so that it should be translated; “If you ask ME anything in my name, I will do it.” It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones include it, and most modern editions of the Greek NT include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this in a note!John 14:17
“Beholds him or knows him” changed to “beholds it or knows it.”
The revision ignores the context of the pronoun with the Comforter role in the preceding verse to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.John 17:5
“Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you” changed to “glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you.”
The original text reflects the shared deity of God the Father and Jesus before the creation of the world, but the revision suggests different natures as implied by different states of glory.John 17:21
“Are in me” changed to “are in union with me.”
The original statement by Jesus indicates his shared deity with the Father. The revision undermines this by suggesting a greater separation between them.Acts 10:36
“Lord of all” changed to “Lord of all [others].”
The revision suggests that even though Jesus is highly honored, he is still one among many of God's created beings. (Similar revisions found in Rom. 8:32; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1: 16-17.)Acts 20:28
They change “God purchased the church with His own blood” to God purchased the church with the blood of His son”
Wrath and indignation will come to every Jw from the Governing Body, who even suggests God purchased the church with His own blood… the blood of Jesus… who is God!Romans 2:29
“By the Spirit” changed to “by spirit.”
Although the definite article 'the” does not literally appear in the Greek, it is implied by the form that (pneuma) appears in. The revision, however, translates pneuma in a more abstract form to evade the reality of the Holy Spirit. (Same revision found in Rom. 15:19; Eph. 2:22; 3:5; Titus 3:5; James 2:26; 2 Peter 1:21.)Rom 8:1
“Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation,” Which omits the word NOW.
The NWT omits key words when to include them may contradict JW doctrine. The most glaring example is Rom 8:1 “Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation,” Which omits the word NOW. This omission is evidently motivated by the fact that the JW's do not believe anyone can claim NOW to be free of condemnation.Romans 8:23a
“Have the firstfruits of the Spirit” changed to “have the firstfruits, namely the spirit.”
This represents another form of disguising the separate personality of the Holy Spirit as in Rom. 2:29 above. The original text refers to the derivatives of the Spirit, but the revision identifies the spirit as a derivative.Romans 8:23b
“The redemption of our b
odies” changed to “the release from our bodies by ransom.”
This revision avoids the suggestion that there is continuity of either body or soul after death. Their teaching that the soul ceases to exist at the death of the body precludes the ownership of, or relationship to, a body that must be redeemed.Romans 8:28
“All things” changed to “all his works.”
The revision undermines the sovereignty of God by suggesting that He controls only the things He is directly involved in doing. This implies that God does not work ALL things together for the good of those that love God, but only those things which he himself does, over which he has control.Romans 8:29
“Those God foreknew” changed to “those whom he gave his first recognition.”
The revision obscures the nature of God's knowledge and power as a first recognition may or may not be foreknowledge.Romans 9:5
“Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!” changed to “Christ, [sprang] according to the flesh: God who is over all, [be] blessed forever.”
The direction proclamation that Christ is God is obscured by the altered text.Romans 10:13
“Lord” changed to “Jehovah.”
This revision obscures the fact that the Lord referred to in verse 13 is the same Lord called Jesus in verse 9. Since the JWs reject the deity of Jesus, the revision is made accordingly. The Greek word, kurios, translated “Lord” has been revised to “Jehovah” over 200 times in the NWT. The JWs insist that this is the only valid title for God, even though Greek-speaking Jews used “Lord” and “God” in place of “Yahweh” (the source of “Jehovah”) throughout their Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Bible contains dozens of names for God other than Lord, Yahweh, or Jehovah.Romans 13:1
“Authorities that exist have been established by God” changed to “authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.”
Since the JW regard saluting a flag, military service and similar forms of submission to government as idolatry, they have added words to the text to weaken the proclaimed authority of government.1 Corinthians 6:19
“Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit” changed to “the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy spirit.”
To avoid recognition of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the revision modifies “body” to a more collective form in harmony with the opposing JW doctrine.1 Corinthians 10:4
“The Rock was Christ” changed to “that rock-mass meant the Christ.”
The passage depicts the preincarnate Jesus exhibiting his divine nature by being present many centuries earlier. This revision tries to conceal his eternal nature with a more figurative interpretation of “the Rock.”1 Corinthians 12:11
“As he determines” changed to “as it wills.”
The NWT finds many ways to disguise the personality of the Holy Spirit. In this case the third person pronoun exercising individual conscience and will is replaced with an impersonal pronoun.1 Corinthians 14:14-16
“Spirit” changed to “[gift of the] spirit.”
Like several other Biblical passages, this one indicates the distinctive presence of the human spirit as distinguished from the mind and body. The JWs evade these distinctions and try to disguise them with related revisions.The phrase GIFT OF THE is added in brackets five times, changing “SPIRIT” to “[GIFT OF THE] SPIRIT.” The NWT elsewhere frequently paraphrases the simple word SPIRIT, especially when referring to the immaterial aspect of human nature, to avoid the implication that such a spirit has a reality distinct from the body. For instance, Heb 12:19 “the Father of spirits” (or the spirits) becomes “the Father of OUR SPIRITUAL LIFE.” In Gal. 6:18 “your spirit” is paraphrased “THE SPIRIT YOU SHOW.” Similar rewording's are introduced in passages where the simple translation of “spirit” or “Spirit” might imply that God's Spirit is a person, contrary to the JW's doctrine that the Holy Spirit is God's “active force.” So, Jude's description of certain men as “not having the Spirit” (or more literally, not having spirit”) is rendered “NOT HAVING SPIRITUALITY” (Jude 19).
1 Corinthians 15:2
“By this gospel you are saved” changed to “through which YOU are also being saved.”
Similar to the Acts 16:30 revision above, this one again obscures the completeness of salvation by grace. The JW's salvation exists as an extended process (“being saved”) with the outcome being uncertain until final judgment before Jehovah.Galatians 6:18
“Your spirit” changed to “the spirit YOU [show].”
Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision above, this one attempts to obscure the reality of the individual human spirit by presenting it more as an attitude of action than an entity.Philippians 1:23
“To depart and be with Christ” changed to “the releasing and the being with Christ.”
Paul's eagerness indicates that the believer's spirit goes immediately into Christ's presence at death. The revision suggests that death and being with Christ are two separate steps in an extended process, as the JWs believe in soul sleep (i.e., the unconscious state of the human spirit awaiting the resurrection).In Phil 1:23-24 several words are added without brackets that, along with some other changes, completely alter the structure and thereby also the meaning of the text. The passage reads in the NWT (with added words in brackets so you can see here) “I am under pressure from [THESE] two things; [BUT WHAT] I do desire is the releasing and the being with Christ, for this, [TO BE SURE], is far better.” There are other errors as well, but the additions indicate here clearly change the meaning so as to avoid the test's implication that Paul would be with Christ after death. Some of the additions in brackets in the NWT so clearly change the meaning it is a wonder that more JW's don't question them? In 1Cor 14:12-16 the phrase GIFT OF THE is added in brackets five times, changing “spirit” to “[GIFT OF THE] spirit.” The result is that Paul's contrast between his own personal “spirit” and his “mind” is removed. To assure that this contrast is missed, the word “MY” is also added in brackets before “MIND” twice in verse 15 but not before SPIRIT. Thus the simple contrast between “the spirit” and “the mind” (or “my spirit” and “my mind” NASB) is changed to “the [GIFT OF THE] spirit” and [MY] mind.”
Phil 2:6
“Although Jesus existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself” (He grasped equality and let it go to become a man) has been changed to “although Jesus was existing in God's form, he gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.”
NWT teaches that Jesus was never equal with God nor did he ever grasp at it. Notice the word seizure, which implies grabbing that which is not yours to grab ie equality. If Jesus was created by God, why would He be considered humble for not thinking of himself as equal to God. That is not humility, but reality! However since Jesus was equal to God, it would require great humility to give up his status as God and become a man through Mary.Col 1:16-20
the word “[other]” has been added 5 times where it is not in the Greek
Awful embarrassing for Jw’s to read this verse with the [other] removed. Why it would mean Jesus was not a creature but God. By adding “other” to “all other things” Jw’s attempt to avoid the obvious original intent of the Greek that Jesus is above all created things implying Jesus is not a creature!The addition of the word OTHER is usually justified by an appeal to such texts as Luke 11:41-42 and Luke 13:2,4, where the word OTHER is also added after the word ALL. However, in these passages (and in others were the same practice is rightly followed) the addition of the word OTHER doesn't change the meaning, but simply makes it read s
moother. In Col 1:16-20, however, whether one adds “OTHER” makes a great deal of difference to the meaning! What is so often noticed is that the NWT does this same thing in several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Rom 8:32; Phil 2:9). In Rom 8:32, the word OTHER is not even placed in brackets, contrary to the work's stated practice. In all of these text, the intent seems to be to undermine the implication of the text that Jesus Christ is God.Colossians 1:19
“His fullness” changed to “fullness.”
The definite Greek article (to), translated “his,” indicates that Jesus shares the Father's divine nature as also shown in Col. 2:9. The revisions evade the truth by concealing the similarity of the two passages.Also notable is Col 1:19 “because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him.” Here the little word THE is omitted before FULLNESS. This is significant, because NWT renders “ALL FULLNESS” is ambiguous, whereas “ALL THE FULLNESS” clearly refers to the fullness of God's own being (compare Col 2:9).
Col 2:6-12
Again, in Col 2:6-12 “IN HIM” and “IN WHOM” (en auto, en ho) becomes “IN UNION WITH HIM” (v.6) “IN HIM” (V.V. 7,9) “BY MEANS OF HIM” (V. 10) and “BY RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM” (V.V..11,12). These variations serve only JW doctrine! They have no other purpose, they undermine the unity of the passage, which is that Christian life consists solely of a supernatural relationship with God through faith in Christ. There are many other passages where IN is paraphrased to avoid the otherwise clear meaning of the text. For example, In Matt. 5:19 IN becomes “IN RELATION TO” so as to avoid the passages teaching that some who disobey the law's commandments and teach others to do so will nevertheless be accepted “in the kingdom of heaven” (which JW's believe will be restricted to the 144,000 special chosen and sanctified believers).Colossians 2:9
“The fullness of deity” changed to “the fullness of the divine quality.”
The Greek theotes, translated “deity,” literally means divine essence or divinity. As the JWs reject the divine nature of Jesus, a revision is inserted to suggest that Jesus is limited to only divine-like characteristics.I Timothy 4:1
“The Spirit” changed to “the inspired utterance.”
This revision attempts to obscure the reality and activity of the Holy Spirit by representing it as a message instead of an entity. (Similar revisions found in 1 John 4:1, 3, 6 with “expression” being utilized in place of “utterance.”) A straightforward “the SPIRIT says” would too obviously imply the personality of the “Spirit”.Titus 2:13
“Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” changed to “the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus.”
Similar to the Rom. 9:5 revision shown above, a distinct proclamation of Jesus as God is obscured by the altered text. (Similar rewording also found in 2 Peter 1:1.)Hebrews 1:6
“But when He again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him' .” (New World Translation, 1950, 1961, 1970 editions,
The NWT revised 1971 edition was changed to read, “do obeisance to” rather than “worship”. This change remains to this day, even though the original word chosen by the 4 NWT translators, was accurate to the Greek. However the Watchtower society was losing so may new converts because of the word “worship” (only God gets worshipped) that they did the typically dishonorable thing and chose the obscure unknown word “obeisance” to complete the deception of new converts.Hebrews 1:8
“Your throne, 0 God” changed to “God is your throne.”
The revision avoids addressing the Son, Jesus, as God to validate the JWs' rejection of his divine nature.Hebrews 9:14
“The eternal Spirit” changed to “an everlasting spirit.”
Similar to the Rom. 2:29 revision above, the switching of the article before the adjective represents the work of the Holy Spirit in a more indirect/ impersonal manner.Hebrews 12:9
“Father of our spirits” changed to “Father of our spiritual life.”
Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision shown above, this one tries to obscure the distinctive reality of human spirits by replacing them with a more abstract noun.Hebrews 12:23
“The spirits of righteous men” changed to “the spiritual lives of righteous ones.”
This revision represents the same noun-switching as described in Heb. 12:9 above.Hebrews 12:28
“We are receiving a kingdom” changed to “we are to receive a kingdom.”
An orthodox Christian understanding of the Kingdom recognizes it as primarily established through Jesus' victorious death, then further through post-resurrection displays of his power, and perpetually through the addition of new believers into God's family. The JWs teach that Jesus' Kingdom did not begin until his invisible return in 1914. The form of the Greek word for “receiving” (paralambano) implies a current condition, but the revision suggests a future event according to the JW doctrine.1 Peter 1:11
“Spirit of Christ in them was pointing” changed to “the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ.”
Another example of the supernatural presence of Jesus in the life of a Christian is obscured again by this revision as the JW doctrinal view presents him as more limited.I Peter 3:18-19
“By the Spirit, through whom” changed to “in the spirit. In this [state].”
Similar to several examples presented above, in this passage the presence and personality of the Holy Spirit is obscured with a more abstract representation of the Holy Spirit to accommodate the JW doctrine.1 John 4:1-6
“Spirit” changed to “inspired expression”
Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our union with God is secure “owing to the spirit which he gave us” (3:24). The next sentence in the NWT reads; “Beloved ones, believe not every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God” (4:1). One would never suspect from this rendering that “INSPIRED EXPRESSION” translates the same Greek word (pneuma) as “SPIRIT” in 3:24 (see 4:2,3,6). John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence assures us of God's love, we are not to believe every “spirit” that claims to be from God but test each one by the teachings it prophets espouses. “Because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (4:1). The NWT obscures this point to avoid the implication that God's Spirit is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic spirits are personal entities and not impersonal forces, as the JW accept).The same doctrinal bias can be seen in 1 Tim 4:1, where the NWT reads; However, the inspired utterance says….” A straightforward “the SPIRIT says” would too obviously imply the personality of the “Spirit”.
Jude 19
“Have the Spirit” changed to “having spirituality.”
Similar to Gal. 6:18 above, this revision attempts to obscure the separate presence of the Holy Spirit.Revelation 3:14
“Ruler of God's creation” changed to “beginning of the creation by God.”
The altered prepositions distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created being.http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm
Hi, I think this is very simple: the NWT puts back what was inmorally taken away: our creators name. All the bible writers that decide for whatever reasons to, or think they have the right to take away ONE LETTER or ADD one,to the original scriptures INSPIRED BY GOD are sinning.It is as simple as that, they know how our FATHER feels about that they are scholars, they know … but they still do it. I like the scriptures that talk about humans wisdom and how stupid it is in GOD'S eyes…
I joined this website because I need spiritual support in this hard times we live in. I do not mean to argue with people who do not believe the way I do. Pardon me if I sound in any other way than kind and loving. I think the scriptures instruct us the way we ought to behave with believers and unbelievers. Our FATHER tells us to witness about the kingdom to people who want to hear it the ones who are thrirsty for accurate knowledge because they want to serve their CREATOR. I want to witness to those people and share with believers accurate knowledge. If somebody does not believe the way you do ,or I do and they ARE NOT looking for additional knowledge then there is no sense in arguing about their differences back and forth, back and forth… then it becomes unfruitful and ungodly. There is only one accurate thruts and we all want to be the ones who are right. I pray to GOD day and night that I find it. I want to be with under HIS RULE on paradise earth.IT is my duty to talk about the good news of HIS KINGDOM to every thristy one.It is all of ours duty to do that . If we concentrate on that everything else good will be added to us.
I've always used a KJV bible. I was given a NIV Rainbow Bible some years ago. I've compared some scriptures in it with the KJV. However, I have found myself reading the same passage of scripture in several different versions on the internet sites, just to see if the same scripture actually means two different things in some of these translations. Other than the fact that I now believe the Roman Catholic Church Had alot to do with the translation of the KJV I still kind of like it the best.
From seeing people state various things about the original transcripts that people have written and added notes all over and people have translated into the text as if it were written by the author. It's probably going to be “Hard-Pressed” to find the “Perfect” translation…unless you build a time machine and go back in time with a copy machine and get the original texts before the Catholics got a hold of them, and bring them back and have a personal scholar translate them for you.
As it is right now…I really believe the best bet is to read the KJV and Pray and Fast an extremely large amount that God and his Spirit will give you the understanding and open your eyes to the word.
A while ago Elaine1809 wrote:
++”I think the scriptures instruct us the way we ought to behave with believers and unbelievers.
How should nonbelievers be treated?
Love and be kind to them? (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:9-10, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8)
Shun them? (2 Corinthians 6:14-17 )
Kill them? (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Stuart
Stu,
What is the purpose of your last post? You take an awful lot of time and research in trying to turn people away from their faith. I bet you know some of the scriptures better than some Christians!
Why do you study scriptures – you do, you know. Even looking up scriptures that point to God's just anger or punishment/discipline is still study of the Bible.
I guess I'm just curious because if you really felt the way you say you do, wouldn't you want to be discussing evolution and God's wrath with other common believer's? Wouldn't you want to be advancing your views/beliefs with other's who are like-minded? I've wondered this about you……….
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 13 2007,18:12) A while ago Elaine1809 wrote: ++”I think the scriptures instruct us the way we ought to behave with believers and unbelievers.
How should nonbelievers be treated?
Love and be kind to them? (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:9-10, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8)
Shun them? (2 Corinthians 6:14-17 )
Kill them? (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Stuart
You can't kill what's already dead. The problem Today is that which is dead just MAY come to lifeQuote (Stu @ Oct. 13 2007,01:12) A while ago Elaine1809 wrote: ++”I think the scriptures instruct us the way we ought to behave with believers and unbelievers.
How should nonbelievers be treated?
Love and be kind to them? (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:9-10, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8)
Shun them? (2 Corinthians 6:14-17 )
Kill them? (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Stuart
Stu,Keep all of this in the context of what is written in the Bible, not any bias you have against it. Now, do you think the Israelites had it better under Pharaoh or after the Exodus? Answer that question and we can move on from there.
Quote (kejonn @ Oct. 14 2007,04:40) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 13 2007,01:12) A while ago Elaine1809 wrote: ++”I think the scriptures instruct us the way we ought to behave with believers and unbelievers.
How should nonbelievers be treated?
Love and be kind to them? (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:9-10, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8)
Shun them? (2 Corinthians 6:14-17 )
Kill them? (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Stuart
Stu,Keep all of this in the context of what is written in the Bible, not any bias you have against it. Now, do you think the Israelites had it better under Pharaoh or after the Exodus? Answer that question and we can move on from there.
Hi kejonnYou've really lost me here. What does the exodus have to do with god's flip-flopping on whether to kill or love atheists?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
