Is there anyone out there who can actually disprove the accuracy of the New World Translation?

2010-12-14 15:44:52 UTC

Greetings,

The accuracy of the NWT is proven by facts such as rules of grammar and translation principles.

I have personally found that in every case where the NWT is criticized it has usually proved to be accurate and in most cases more accurate than the most other translations. *Most* criticisms brought against it are usually themselves unwarranted and unfairly biased and usually demands an ignorance from hearers of Greek words and semantics according to standard Greek Lexicons and Dictionaries.

The several answers to this question demonstrate this fact.

For example, EVERY thing stated by “Booth,” "Biblereview," "Unsilenced" and “TheWatchtowerIsLying” is completely false:

People who claim that we needed to translate "our own bible" in order to support our beliefs are being misled. Most of JW's beliefs had been long established before the NWT ever came into existence.

Next, the fact is that absolutely no one knows who the translators were. There are some names which are good guesses for some, but there is no evidence to confirm these assumptions. Nor, can the translators be limited to these guesses. So the assertion that the translators did not know the original languages is an unsupported opinion. It is contradicted by the evidence and the statements of unbiased non-JW scholars:

"The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars..."-- Alexander Thompson, The Differentiator

"...the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and acumen." Charles Francis Potter, The Faith Men Live by

"The New Testament translation was made by a committee...that possessed an unusual competence in Greek."-- S. MacLean Gilmore, the Andover Newton Quarterly, Sept.1966

Third, the claim that the NWT “is the only one that is missing the parts that say Jesus is God” reveals a great ignorance of the facts. The NWT has not removed any part which calls Jesus “God.” And in every verse in which the NWT differs from the reading of the KJV other non-JW translations have rendered it exactly like the NWT (this includes “Booth’s” reference to the passage regarding the dead who rose at Jesus' death).

Those who post such simplistic and fallacious criticisms dishonestly demand that hearers do not do even the most basic of research.

Next, the claim that replacing the Greek word KURIOS with Jehovah “is a clear case of inaccurate translation” actually requires us to be ignorant of standard translation principles and practice. This claim is based on theological bias and not on facts.

The NWT inserts the Name Jehovah in the NT because textual and translation principles demand it. Many other translators have acknowledged these principles either by placing Jehovah "Jehovah" in the NT, or in the case of most translators by capitalizing LORD which ALWAYS denotes Jehovah (e.g., Ac.2:34; Mt.22:44; Mk.12:36). These versions usually state that when "Lord" is written as "LORD" it stands for Jehovah, so they are actually doing exactly what the NWT does.

Also confirming this as a valid principle, some respected Bibles replace the original Greek pronouns "he" or "him" with "Jesus" or “God” (NIV; NJB; NAB). For example look at 1Cor.15:27,28 in several Bibles (e.g., NIV, TEV) and you will see how much clearer replacing the pronouns with “Jesus” and “God” makes the text (cf. 1Jn 5:14, 15).

Now, it can be claimed that there is absolutely no Greek textual support for these translators to use this device, but this claim is simply based on theological bias and not translation principles.

In the above places "Lord" is textually accurate, though factually incorrect. But a translator's prime concern is with transmitting the meaning of the original writer, and it is a fact that in many occurrences of KURIOS the *absolute semantic equivalence* in the target language must be "Jehovah" (e.g.; Mk.12:25-36; Ac.2:21, 33-34; Rm.10:13) (see Girdlestone’s Synonyms of the OT p. 43).

Standard reference works provide evidence that this is in accord with translation principles:

"The use of kyrios in the Synoptic Gospels...is also a designation of God in quotations from the LXX or as a substitute for the name of God."--McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible

"In the NT, likewise, KURIOS, when used as a name of God...most usually corresponds to hwhy Jehovah, and in this sense is applied." --A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament, by J. Parkhurst

So in EVERY place where the NWT and others have restored Jehovah to the text of the N.T. it has been fully in accord with the rules of translation. Therefore the NWT fulfills the requirement for accuracy in translation in this regard.

Yours,

BAR-ANERGES

TeeM

2010-12-14 13:29:26 UTC

I see many repeat of misinformation being presented as facts.

Most of the scriptures listed are variants of the different master texts being used for the translation.

One master text says "me" other master texts leave out "me" and since the NWT leaves out the "me"; some will claim the NWT is wrong.

Another item many fail to consider is that most of the texts in question, the words have alternate meanings. Does the greek word mean "beginning" or "ruler"? compare Rev 3:14 in various bibles.

Most trinitarians will accept 'ruler' because it agrees with their belief, and are crucial of the NWT because it uses 'beginning'.

"other" at Col. 1:15-18, because it agrees with context, vs 15 tells us that Jesus is an image of God, and the firstborn of all creation. This phrase makes Jesus part of creation. If you leave "other" out it implies that he created himself.

Finally, for those who are upset about Jehovah's name in the NT, why don't they cry as loud at the other bibles that leave it out the 6800 plus times it appears in the OT?

to complain about one and not the other denotes hypocrisy.

.

2010-12-12 05:14:41 UTC

Assuming that you're speaking of accuracy of translation from the original language manuscripts: yes.

Example: Mat 1:20

The NWT renders Greek "kyrios" (no definite article) as "Jehovah's" rather than "lord's". There is no known manuscript of Matthew which includes the tetragrammaton in this verse. The meaning of the word is plain: although it *is likely* that the ***reference*** is to God ("Jehovah"), the verse in the original language **does not use the divine name**. SO, rather than translate the Greek word "kyrios", the translators of the NWT have **replaced** that word with the name of God.

This is a clear case of **inaccurate translation**. The original language word is NOT translated into an English word that means the same thing. Rather, a common noun is *replaced* by a name - a proper noun - a name which the Greek word **might** reference but **certainly does not** state.

There are a couple of other instances of certain mistranslation (particularly I recall the passage regarding the dead who "rose" at Jesus' death) - but they are relatively few and far between and minor. The most obvious and clear cases of inaccurate translation are the several instances that are nearly identical to the example that I have provided.

Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

2010-12-12 17:34:14 UTC

yep:

http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/New_World_Translation/dan_glover.htm

Bad Translations of the Jehovah's Witness Bible, the New World Translation (NWT).

1. Gen. 1:1-2 - "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters," (New World Translation, emphasis added).

1. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society denies that the Holy Spirit is alive, the third person of the Trinity. Therefore, they have changed the correct translation of "...the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters," to say "...and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."

2. Zech. 12:10 - In this verse God is speaking and says, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son" (Zech. 12:10, NASB).

1. The Jehovah's Witnesses change the word "me" to "the one" so that it says in their Bible, "...they will look upon the one whom they have pierced..."

Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in flesh, then Zech. 12:10 would present obvious problems--so they changed it.

3. John 1:1 - They mistranslate the verse as "a god." Again it is because they deny who Jesus is and must change the Bible to make it agree with their theology. The Jehovah's Witness version is this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

4. Col. 1:15-17 - The word "other" is inserted 4 times. It is not in the original Greek, nor is it implied. This is a section where Jesus is described as being the creator of all things. Since the Jehovah's Witness organization believes that Jesus is created, they have inserted the word "other" to show that Jesus was before all "other" things, implying that He is created.

1. There are two Greek words for "other": heteros, and allos. The first means another of a different kind, and the second means another of the same kind. Neither is used at all in this section of scripture. The Jehovah's Witness have changed the Bible to make it fit their aberrant theology.

5. Heb. 1:6 - In this verse they translate the Greek word for worship, proskuneo, as "obeisance." Obeisance is a word that means to honor, show respect, even bow down before someone. Since Jesus, to them, is created, then he cannot be worshiped. They have also done this in other verses concerning Jesus, i.e., Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9.

6. Heb. 1:8 - This is a verse where God the Father is calling Jesus God: "But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.'" Since the Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with that they have changed the Bible, yet again, to agree with their theology. They have translated the verse as "...God is your throne..." The problem with the Jehovah's Witness translation is that this verse is a quote from Psalm 45:6 which, from the Hebrew, can only be translated as "...Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom." To justify their New Testament translation they actually changed the OT verse to agree with their theology, too!

The NWT translation is not a good translation. It has changed the text to suit its own theological bias in many places.

TheWatchtowerIsLyingToYou

2010-12-12 11:13:15 UTC

Look at it this way: The NWT was translated by 5 or 6 men who had no knowledge of the Biblical languages.

Today, this would be like a novel-translating company translating books soley by using Google's translator. Would each specific word be translated correctly? Absolutely. But there being no translation for context, the entire story gets warped and twisted.

The translators of the NWT had absolutely no scriptural exegesis, none.

Susan

2010-12-12 13:29:53 UTC

One reason Yahoo Answers cannot always be considered a reliable source for answers to your questions is due to the fact that many people attempt to answer questions in which they are not qualified to answer. I would never be presumptuous enough to attempt to answer a question about a religion or group to which I do not belong. Rather than accept the answers from unreliable sources (such as many above) whose qualifications are questionable, it is best to seek information from an source that IS qualified to answer.

I suggest you pick up the book "Truth in Translation" by Jason BeDuhn. BeDuhn holds a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions and is currently a Professor of Religious studies at NAU. In this book he compares different Bible versions, including the NWT. He is not a JW, however he has a lot of positive to say about the NWT, in the end stating "The NW emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." (p. 163)

2010-12-12 05:06:58 UTC

People who say no agree scholar agrees with the New World Translation are lying. Websites may tell them that, but that not backed up by facts.

People who say that the Jehovah's Witnesses mistranslated John 1:1 or changed the scriptures are in fact ignorant. Even some Trinitarian Greek Scholars say that he rendering of John 1:1 in the New World Translation is possible.

People say that the King James Version is the most accurate translation out there, when it's one of the worst. Even many scholars will agree to that.

gazza

2010-12-12 05:00:52 UTC

OR, can anyone prove the accuracy of the New World Translation?

TJ

2010-12-12 04:49:50 UTC

On The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

Absolute Guess

2010-12-12 04:57:47 UTC

"accuracy of the New World Translation" as a search term should give you what you ask for, but not what you want.

2010-12-12 04:52:13 UTC

Dude, you're asking people to do something that is practically impossible because no one can travel back in time and see if anything that is in the NWT, or any translation of the bible for that matter, actually happened.

Unless you can prove the existence of your god, there is nothing to disprove, because none of your beliefs have been proven yet.

Jay

2010-12-15 09:32:34 UTC

Perhaps you should do a bit more reading.

Think Tanker

2010-12-12 04:53:30 UTC

A simple question and I never got answer for it..

Did Matthew ever claimed that his books is inspired by Holy Spirit? If not and indeed not, how on earth "YOU" claim that was inspired by God.

peacelily

2010-12-13 19:40:34 UTC

The WTS has made a comparison between the original Greek from the Westcott-Hort text and the NWT rendering fairly simple through their own Kingdom Interlinear Translation. As the editors of this publication explain, "The word-for-word interlinear translation and the New World Translation are arranged in parallel on the page, so that comparisons can be made between the two readings. Thus, the accuracy of any modern translation can be determined."

So, let's have a look at a few examples. (The Society's own 1969 word-for-word KIT translation will appear first). I will put in all caps any words that seem to be added, deleted, or altered to change the meaning rather than to make English reading smoother. I only have so much space—this is by no means exhaustive:

Rom. 14:8-9: if ever and for we may be living, to the LORD we are living, if ever and we may be dying, to the LORD we are dying. If ever and therefore we may be living if ever and we may be dying, of the LORD we are. Into this for Christ died and he lived in order that and of dead (ones) and of living (ones) he might be lord.

"for both if we live, we live to JEHOVAH, and if we die, we die to JEHOVAH. Therefore both if we live and if we die, we belong to JEHOVAH. For to this end Christ died and came to life again, that he might be Lord over both the dead and the living.

------

Col. 1:16-17: because in him it was created the all (things) in the heavens and upon the earth, the (things) visible and the (things) invisible…the all (things) through him and into him it has been created; and he is before all (things) and the all (things) in him it has stood together,

because by means of him all [OTHER] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible…All [OTHER] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [OTHER] things and by means of him all [OTHER] things were made to exist,

------

Rom. 8:1: Nothing really NOW condemnation to the (ones) in Christ Jesus;

"Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation."

------

Rom. 8:28: We have known by that to the (ones) loving the God ALL (THINGS) is working together the God into good, to the (ones) according to purpose called (ones) being.

"Now we know that God makes all HIS WORKS co-operate together for the good of those who love God, those who are the ones called according to his purpose;"

------

Rom. 8:32: Who in fact of the own Son not he spared, but over us all he gave beside him, how not also together with him the ALL (things) to us will he graciously give?

"He who did not even spare his own Son but delivered him up for us all, why will he not also with him kindly give us all OTHER things?

------

John 14:14: if ever anything you should ask ME in the name of me this I shall do.

"If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.

------

John 6:29: …This is the work of the God in order that you may BELIEVE into whom sent forth that (one).

This is the work of God, that you EXERCISE FAITH in him whom that One sent forth.

------

John 6:40: This for is the will of the Father of me in order that everyone the beholding the Son and BELIEVING into him may have life everlasting, and I shall resurrect him I to the last day.

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone that beholds the Son and EXERCISES FAITH in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him at the last day.

------

John 1:1: In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word.

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was A god.

------

1 Cor. 14:12-16: Thus also you, since zealous you are of spirits, toward the upbuilding of the ecclesia be you seeking in order that you may be abounding…If ever for I am praying to tongue, the spirit of me is praying, the but mind of me unfruitful is. What therefore is it? I shall pray to the spirit, I shall pray but also to the mind; I shall make melody to the spirit, I shall make melody but also to the mind; since if ever you may be blessing in spirit, the (one) filling up the place of the ordinary (one) how will he say the Amen upon the your thanksgiving?

So also you yourselves, since you are zealously desirous of [GIFTS OF THE] spirit, seek to abound in them for the upbuilding of the congregation…For if I am praying in a tongue, it is my [GIFT OF THE] spirit that is praying, but my mind is unfruitful. What is to be done, then? I will pray with the [GIFT OF THE] spirit, but I will also pray with [my] mind. I will sing praise with the [GIFT OF THE] spirit, but I will also sing praise with [my] mind. Otherwise, if you offer praise with a [GIFT OF THE] spirit, how will the man occupying the seat of the ordinary person say “Amen” to your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?

------

1 Tim. 4:1: The but SPIRIT spokenly is saying...

However, the INSPIRED UTTERANCE says...

2010-12-12 04:50:27 UTC

Is the accuracy with which a fairy tale is translated relevant?