Question:
How knowledgeable are/were the translators of the New World Translation?
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
How knowledgeable are/were the translators of the New World Translation?
Fifteen answers:
Rock Realty
2010-04-23 07:50:46 UTC
Very, and one way to see would be to look at the people that read that translation. Gods Holy Spirit was definitely on the translators of the NWT. Second, would it be wise to look to a translation that has limited, or removed all together, the very name of God, when the name of God appears almost 7,000 times in the original Hebrew Scriptures? In Psalm 34:3 worshipers of Jehovah are exhorted: "O magnify Jehovah with me, you people, and let us exalt his name together." How can readers of Bible translations that omit God's name respond fully to that exhortation? Christians are happy that at least some translators have had the courage to include God's name in their renderings of the Hebrew Scriptures.
expertgal
2010-04-23 07:11:51 UTC
Actually, they did a pretty good job of translating from the Greek and Hebrew.

That can be a difficult job. Quit picking at the small stuff. There are more

important Words of God to consider and follow.
Here Kitty Kitty
2010-04-23 15:37:42 UTC
And how are you an expert on translation to know?
Abernathy the Dull
2010-04-23 12:48:35 UTC
"There has been a lot of altering in the understanding of the tense of "ego eimi" was spoken in. The Watchtower and Bible Tract Society have decided this tense three different ways."



Wrong. Your examples are describing the English tense that "I have been" is in the English NWT. They do not discuss the Greek tense. The WBTS just used three different ways of describing the English Perfect tense. "Perfect indefinite tense" and "Perfect tense" are different ways of saying the same English tense. "Perfect indicative" is the same tense, but "indicative" is describing the mood of the verb.



"According to other “true” Greek Scholars, all three tries are WRONG, The correct tense is the present tense, and the correct translation is "I am", not "I have been."



A very, very misleading sentence.



Greek scholars acknowledge that "ego eimi" is in the Greek Present tense, but you fail to mention that that tense has many different functions in the Greek. One function is "Extension from Past." This use of the Greek Present tense has the verb starting sometime in the past, and continuing into the present. This is best translated into English with the English Perfect tense, just like the NWT does with John 8:58, and the similar construction in John 15:27.



Kenneth L. McKay defines and explains "Extension from Past" (giving several Biblical examples) in his book, "A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek," (Peter Lang, 1994) pages 41, 42, 44, 45. He says John 8:58 is "Extension from Past." Daniel Wallace, although not favoring this meaning, mentions it as a possibility for John 8:58 on page 531 of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.
Leo
2010-04-23 09:41:39 UTC
Try the context

John 8:58



verse 57 says "57 Therefore the Jews said to him: “You are not yet fifty years old, and still you have seen Abraham?”



Jesus answered their question with reference to time not name as their question was.



58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”



All the other verses in John 8:18,23,24,28 Jesus is referring to himself and is translated as such



but lets go back to John 8:58. Why pick on the NWT and its translators?



Fourth/Fifth Century “before Abraham was, I have been”

Syriac—Edition:Sinaitic Palimpsest



Fifth Century “before ever Abraham came to be, I was” Curetonian Syriac—Edition:The Curetonian Version



Fifth Century “before Abraham existed, I was” Syriac Peshitta—Edition: The Syriac New Testament



Fifth Century “before Abraham came to be, I was” Georgian—Edition: “The Old Georgian Version



Sixth Century “before Abraham was born, I was” Ethiopic—Edition:Novum Testamentum Æthiopice





Do you want to say these guys got it wrong?



Concerning this construction, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: “Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,—a state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 ἀπ’ ἀρχη̃ς μετ’ ἐμου̃ ἐστέ [ap’ ar·khes′ met’ e·mou′ e·ste′], viii. 58 πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι [prin A·bra·am′ ge·ne′sthai e·go′ ei·mi].”

Likewise, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: “The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress . . . It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Lk 248 137 . . . 1529 . . . Jn 56 858 . . . ”



Attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some say that ἐγὼ εἰμί (e·go′ ei·mi′) is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression ’ani′ hu’, “I am he,” which is used by God. However, it is to be noted that this Hebrew expression is also used by man.—See 1Ch 21:17 ftn.



Further attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some try to use Ex 3:14 (LXX) which reads: ᾿Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ω̉́ν (E·go′ ei·mi ho on), which means “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One.” This attempt cannot be sustained because the expression in Ex 3:14 is different from the expression in Joh 8:58.Throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures it is not possible to make an identification of Jesus with Jehovah as being the same person.



@SPIRITROAMING

Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.



The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”



The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”



Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.
Bigraff
2010-04-23 07:30:47 UTC
I would say they are knowledgeable enough. I, and I suppose most of us, do not speak the original bible languages so we must rely on the experts. Unfortunately they don't always agree so we are left to reason and pray about these controversial verses.

I own many bible translations including the New World Translation and in my research they seem to have scholarly support for most verses that would be considered out of mainstream Christianity.



The same wording of John 8 as the NWT can be found in the " American Translation ", "Moffatts", "Williams" and the "Bible in Simple English"

These scholars see something in this verse that they feel allows them to express existence as a predicate like other verbs.



The context of John 8 is worth considering. The question was how old was Jesus. Not who are you?
allyson
2016-06-02 12:28:03 UTC
Not defending the New World translation, but when translating, there is always a danger of not getting it "just right" to get the message across. Sometimes things can be translated with absolute correctness, but with a totally different meaning to the person reading it. And this is what we get today with different theological views of different verses -- the problem doesn't belong to just the Jehovah's Witnesses. I think the New World translation simply presents the Bible in a way that Jehovah's Witnesses can understand it as applying more closely to their faith. This does not mean that the JW's are correct! It just means that with the NWT behind them as a version that supports their beliefs, they can move to other translations and translate them the same way that the NWT presents it.
SUNSHINE
2010-04-23 07:11:25 UTC
# How knowledgeable are/were the translators of the New World Translation?



#ANSWER: We don't know, since the NWT committee chose to remain anonymous. What we DO know is that the NWT translation of John was linguistically sound.



Some people object to the New World Translation's rendering of John chapter 5 verse 58 claiming that Jesus in this verse was referring to himself as YHWH; however Jesus was not using the verb 'to be' here as a title but rather normally in a phrase to explain his existence prior to Abraham.



#QUESTION: So how does "εγω ειμι" (ego eimi) rightly translate? Actually both "I am" and "I have been" are legitimate translations of the Greek εγω ειμι, ego eimi.



"Ego eimi" is literally SIMPLE PRESENT (I am). However the usage of Jesus is similar to what many scholars refer to as the “historical present.”** meaning that Jesus places his present tense usage in a past tense context by using the Greek word “prin”, meaning “before”. Jesus said “before Abraham” came to be existing "[lit] I am" In this situation English would use the present perfect tense ('I have been').



J. H. Moulton's Grammar of New Testament Greek states: "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress (Burton § 17).It is frequent in the NT: Luke 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Jn 5:6; 8:58; 14:9; 15:27; Acts 15:21; 26:31; 2 Cor.12:19,2 Ti.3:18; 2 Pt.3:4; 1 Jn 2:9;3:8." (Note that Moulton includes John 8:58 in this category).



**Regarding "labeling of the tenses" see link (scroll down)

http://jehovah.to/xlation/int.html



FURTHER....



The NWT is not alone in this rendering note the following, note various translations render the verse:



1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.



1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.



1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.



1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.



1984: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.



The New Testament Or Rather The New Covenant- S.Sharpe: "I was before Abraham".



A Bible, A New Translation- J.Moffatt: "I existed before Abraham was born"



The New Testament in the Language of the Day-W.G.Beck: "I was before Abraham"



The Simple English Bible: "I was alive before Abraham was born"



The New Testament in the Language of the People- C.B.Williams: "I existed before Abraham was born"



The Bible-An American Translation- E.Goodspeed (NT): "I existed"



The Unvarnished New Testament- A.Gaus: "I have already been"



The Authentic New Testament-H.J.Schonfield: "I existed"



The Complete Gospels- R.J.Miller(Editor): "I existed"



New American Standard Bible 1963-1970 editions: "I have been"- alternative rendering



MORE....



New American Standard Bible (NASB) (margin 1960-1973 editions): Or, "I have been."



The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."



The 20th Century New Testament: "before Abraham existed I was."



The New Testament, An American Translation Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham was born."



The Complete Bible, An American Translation Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham was born."



New Believers Bible, New Living Translation: "I existed before Abraham was even born."



The New Testament, C. B. Williams: "I solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born."



The Book, New Testament: The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."



The Living Bible: "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."



The Four Gospels, Lattimore: "Truly, truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born."



The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text, Lamsa: "Before Abraham was born, I was."



An American Translation, In The Language of Today, Beck: "I was before Abraham."



New Testament Contemporary English Version: "I tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am."



The Living Scriptures (Messianic Version): "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."



The Unvarnished New Testament: "Before Abraham was born, I have already been."



The New Testament, Klist & Lilly: "I am here-and I was before Abraham."



The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams: "I existed before Abraham was born."



The New Testament, Noyes: "From before Abraham was, I have been."



A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: "Before Abraham was, I have been."



The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: "Before Abraham existed I was."



The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt: "Before Abraham came to be, I was."



The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, Blake & Briere: "Before Abraham came to be, I was."



Nouvum Testamentum AEthiopice, Platt, Lepzip: "Before Abraham was born, I was."



The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, Sharpe: "I was before Abraham was born."



The 20th Century New Testament 1904: "Before Abraham existed I was already what I am."



The New Testament, Stage: "Before Abraham came to be, I was."



The Coptic Version the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Horner: "Before Abraham became, I, I am being."



The Documents of the New Testament, Wade: "Before Abraham came into being, I have existed."



The New Testament in Hebrew, Delitzsh: Before Abraham was, I have been."



The New Testament in Hebrew, Salkinson & Ginsberg: "I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham."



The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Swan: "I existed before Abraham was born."



The New Testament (in German) Pfaefflin: "Before there was an Abraham, I was already there."



The Authentic New Testament, Schonfield: "I existed before Abraham was born."



Biblia Sagdrada, Roman Catholic: "Before Abraham existed, I was existing."



The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Noli: "I existed before Abraham was born."



The Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson: "I existed even before Abraham was born."



A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida: "Before Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed."



The Simple English Bible: "I was alive before Abraham was born."



The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."



The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham."
2010-04-23 07:09:18 UTC
If you dig deep enough you'll start finding your own mistakes. Where do they state this in the Societies publications? Obviously you haven't taken into consideration the context. Or the fact that the KJV has been found to have over 20 thousand mistakes!

Reasoning from the Scriptures states "RS reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am [Greek, e‧go′ ei‧mi′].’” (NE, KJ, TEV, JB, NAB all read “I am,” some even using capital letters to convey the idea of a title. Thus they endeavor to connect the expression with Exodus 3:14, where, according to their rendering, God refers to himself by the title “I Am.”) However, in NW the latter part of John 8:58 reads: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (The same idea is conveyed by the wording in AT, Mo, CBW, and SE.)

Which rendering agrees with the context? The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Jesus’ reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply e‧go′ ei‧mi′ as a title to the holy spirit.

Says A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei‧mi′] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e‧go′ ei‧mi′] (Jo. 8:58).”—Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394."

Furthermore "ti p. 26

AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: “Before Abraham ever was, I Am.” Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title “I Am”? And, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: “God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM”?

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase “I AM” is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: “To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, ‘Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.’ Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] ‘I will be what I will be.’”

The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58:

1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.

1984: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God’s created “firstborn,” Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to “have seen Abraham” although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus’ natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he “was alive before Abraham was born!”—The Simple English Bible."

"But does Jesus’ prehuman existence mean that he was God? A teacher’s manual makes that claim, saying: “Whenever Jesus referred to Himself as ‘I Am’ . . . , He identified Himself as the Jehovah of the Old Testament.” Is this true?""At John 8:58, once again the King James Version has Jesus using the expression “I am” in connection with himself, saying, “Before Abraham was, I am.” But here the expression is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or title but simply as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Thus, according to the New World Translation, the more correct rendering of John 8:58 is: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

Clearly, no Scriptural basis exists for the claim that Jesus is the same as Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures. Even the teacher’s manual previously quoted admits: “That Christ existed before His birth in Bethlehem does not in itself prove He was God (He could have existed as an angel).” In fact, this is what the Bible teaches. In his prehuman existence, Jesus was “a god,” or divine one, but not the God, the almighty God Jehovah.—John 1:1-3; 1 Thessalonians 4:16."

"*** g87 3/22 p. 12 How Knowing Greek Led Me to Know God ***

In Bible study, however, you look not only at the context but also at other scriptures to see how the word is used in different settings. So you check to see whether you’re leaning on your assumptions or on the evidence. I noticed that these tract writers frequently manipulate the evidence, misrepresent it. On the other hand, the Society was quite honest in looking at all the evidence, all the possibilities, offering their conclusions, but then telling you to decide. After a careful examination of the points of controversy, I saw that the Society was right.

In some places the Trinitarians clearly manipulate the evidence. The classic example of this is, I guess, John 8:58. There Jesus said: “Before Abraham was, I am.” (King James Version) The Trinitarians pick up Jesus’ use of “I am” here and relate it to Jehovah’s statement to Moses in Exodus 3:14 (KJ), “I am that I am.” Because both Jesus and Jehovah used “I am,” they argue that this makes Jesus and Jehovah one. And the Greek root does say am in the present tense at John 8:58.

However, even their own theological grammar books acknowledge that where an expression of past time appears in the sentence, the present tense verb can sometimes be translated as if it has begun in past time and continues up to the present. This is also true in French and it is true in Latin. Hence, when the New World Translation says “I have been” instead of “I am,” it is translating the Greek correctly. (John 8:58) Yet the Trinitarians act as if ‘No, that’s not even possible!’ So I began to notice this misrepresentation of the evidence on the part of the detractors of the Society."

"Joh 8:58—“before Abraham came into existence, I have been”

Gr., πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

(prin A‧bra‧am′ ge‧ne′sthai e‧go′ ei‧mi′)

Fourth/Fifth “before Abraham was, Syriac—Edition:

Century I have been” A Translation of the Four

Gospels from the Syriac of

the Sinaitic Palimpsest,

by Agnes Smith Lewis,

London, 1894.

Fifth Century “before ever Abraham Curetonian Syriac—Edition:

came to be, I was” The Curetonian Version of

the Four Gospels, by

F.Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1,

Cambridge, England, 1904.

Fifth Century “before Abraham Syriac Peshitta—Edition:

existed, I was” The Syriac New Testament

Translated into English

from the Peshitto Version,

by James Murdock, seventh

ed., Boston and London,

1896.

Fifth Century “before Abraham Georgian—Edition:

came to be, I was” “The Old Georgian Version

of the Gospel of John,” by

Robert P. Blake and Maurice

Brière, published in

Patrologia Orientalis,

Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4,

Paris, 1950.

Sixth Century “before Abraham Ethiopic—Edition:

was born, I was” Novum Testamentum . . .

Æthiopice (The New

Testament . . . in

Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell

Platt, revised by F.

Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

The action expressed in Joh 8:58 started “before Abraham came into existence” and is still in progress. In such situation εἰμί (ei‧mi′), which is the first-person singular present indicative, is properly translated by the perfect indicative. Examples of the same syntax are found in Lu 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Joh 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; Ac 15:21; 2Co 12:19; 1Jo 3:8.

Concerning this construction, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: “Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,—a state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ [apʼ ar‧khes′ metʼ e‧mou′ e‧ste′], viii. 58 πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι [prin A‧bra‧am′ ge‧ne′sthai e‧go′ ei‧mi].”
SpiritRoaming
2010-04-23 07:24:45 UTC
Not very.



The NWT is the anonymous work of the “New World Bible Translation Committee.” Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the anonymity is in place so that the credit for the work will go to God. Of course this has the added benefit of keeping the translators from any accountability for their errors, and prevents real scholars from checking their academic credentials.



The New World Translation is unique in one thing – it is the first intentional systematic effort at producing a complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group's doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society realized that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. So, rather than conforming their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs. The “New World Bible Translation Committee” went through the Bible and changed any Scripture that did not agree with Jehovah’s Witness’ theology. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that as new editions to the New World Translation were published, additional changes were made to the biblical text. As biblical Christians continued to point out, Scriptures that clearly argue for the deity of Christ (for example), the Watchtower Society would publish a new edition of the New World Translation with those Scriptures changed. Following are some of the more prominent examples of intentional revisions.



The New World Translation renders the Greek term word "staurós" ("cross") as "torture stake" because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross. The New World Translation does not translate the Greek words “sheol,” "hades,” "gehenna," and "tartarus," as "hell” because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in hell. The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of “coming” for the Greek word “parousia” because JW’s believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900’s. In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word “other” despite it being completely absent from the original Greek text. It does this to give the view that “all other things” were created by Christ, instead of what the text says, “all things were created by Christ.” This is to go along with their belief that Christ is a created being, which they believe because they deny the Trinity.



The most well known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1. The original Greek text reads, “the Word was God.” The NWT renders it has “the word was a god.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English - "a" or "an"). So any use of an indefinite article in the English translation must be added in by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable in English, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.



While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have done, they cannot show that it is the proper translation. Nor can they explain the fact that that the NWT does not translate the exact same Greek phrases elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way. It is only the pre-conceived heretical rejection of the deity of Christ that forces the Watchtower Society to inconsistently translate the Greek text, thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy to those ignorant of the facts.
Yoseph
2010-04-23 07:13:40 UTC
Read Revelations 22: 18,19 KJV
PaulCyp
2010-04-23 07:15:40 UTC
The New World "Bible" is not a translation. It is a rewriting of the Bible, such that the resulting product is not the Bible at all.
Joe S
2010-04-23 07:12:15 UTC
The translation is irrelevant as the old and new testament are both based on bronze age goat herder superstitions.
John 3:16
2010-04-23 07:14:25 UTC
KJV is the only version to use if you are a serious bible student.
2010-04-23 07:25:18 UTC
The New World Translation



New Testament, 1950. Frederick W. Franz, ed., New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Rendered from the Original Language by the New World Translation Committee. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1950.



Bible, 1961. Frederick W. Franz, ed., The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, rendered from the Original Languages by the New World Bible Translation Committee. Revised A.D. 1961. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1961. The Old Testament was originally published in parts from 1953 to 1960. The whole was revised for the one-volume edition in 1961, and subsequently revised in 1970 and 1984.



The publisher of this version has never made public the names of the translators. But former members of the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization have identified the members of the committee as Nathan H. Knorr (President of the organization), Frederick W. Franz (Vice-President), George D. Gangas, and Albert D. Schroeder. According to Raymond V. Franz, the "principal translator of the Society's New World Translation" was Frederick W. Franz. (1) According to M. James Penton, "to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man, Frederick Franz." (2) Franz afterwards became the President of the organization, from 1977 to 1992, and was responsible for the revisions.



The Forward to the first edition of the New Testament (1950) explained the need for the version, and also indicated the reason for its name: "It befits the significant time of transition from the old world to the righteous new world that translations of the Scriptures today should as far as possible eliminate the misleading influence of religious traditions which have their roots in paganism." (p.7, emphasis added.)



The New Testament adheres to the text of Westcott & Hort. It is a fairly literal translation, for the most part, but it does have some peculiar non-literal renderings. These are the result of the committee's efforts to conform the version to the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses. "Jehovah" is given as a translation for kurios (Lord) in the New Testament whenever the Father is meant, but not when it refers to Christ, the Son. "Torture stake" is put instead of "cross" because the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the cross is an idolatrous symbol introduced by the Roman Catholic Church. And because this sect teaches that Jesus Christ was merely an angel, the version reflects a Unitarian bias in several places.



Examples of Unitarian bias:



* 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." The ruach elohim ("Spirit of God") of the Hebrew is interpreted "God's active force" in order to avoid the Trinitarian understanding of the "Spirit."

* Zech. 12:10. "...they will look upon the one whom they have pierced..." Here the Hebrew "look upon me whom they have pierced," in which God is the speaker, has been altered in order to avoid the implication that the one who is to be pierced (on the cross) is God.

* John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Instead of the literal "the Word was God," we have "a god," which the sect interprets as "an angelic being."

* Col. 1:15-17. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist." Because the sect teaches that Christ was a created being rather than eternal God, the word "other" is inserted several times. The first edition of the translation did this without brackets.

* Heb. 1:8. "God is your throne forever" (a nonsensical statement) is put intead of "your throne, O God, is forever," because this statement refers to Christ.



Because the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that men exercise "free will" in accepting or rejecting Christ, the version also has such forced interpretations as:



* Acts 13:48. "When those of the nations heard this, they began to rejoice and to glorify the word of Jehovah, and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers." Here "rightly disposed" (a human inclination) replaces "ordained" (a divine appointment).



In his book Crisis of Conscience Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses, describes some interesting conversations that he had with the principal translator of the version, who happened to be his uncle. He recounts that between 1965 and 1971, while engaged in preparing a Bible dictionary (published in 1971 under the title Aid to Bible Understanding), he sought guidance on a number of questions from Frederick Franz, who "was acknowledged as the organization's principal Bible scholar." We reproduce below several paragraphs from Crisis of Conscience (pages 21-24) for the light they shed upon the New World Translation and one of its translators, and also for the wise observations of the author concerning the interpretation of the Bible.



The Society's vice president, Fred Franz, was acknowledged as the organization's principal Bible scholar. On a number of occasions I went to his office to inquire about points. To my surprise he frequently directed me to Bible commentaries, saying, "Why don't you see what Adam Clarke says, or what Cooke says," or, if the subject primarily related to the Hebrew Scriptures, "what the Soncino commentaries say." Our Bethel Library contained shelf after shelf after shelf filled with such commentaries. Since they were the product of scholars of other religions, however, I had not given much importance to them, and, along with others in the department, felt some hesitancy, even distrust, as to using them. As Karl Klein, a senior member of the Writing Department, sometimes very bluntly expressed it, using these commentaries was "sucking at the t-ts of Babylon the Great," the empire of false religion according to the Society's interpretation of the great Harlot of Revelation.



The more I looked up information in these commentaries, however, the more deeply impressed I was by the firm belief in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures the vast majority expressed. I was impressed even more so by the fact that, though some were written as early as the eighteenth century, the information was generally very worthwhile and accurate. I could not help but compare this with our own publications which, often within a few years, became "out of date" and ceased to be published. It was not that I felt these commentaries to be without error by any means; but the good certainly seemed to outweigh the occasional points I felt to be mistaken.



When the subjects of "Older Man [Elder]" and "Overseer" were assigned to me, research into the Scriptures themselves soon made evident that the congregational form of supervision employed by us did not conform to the first-century arrangements. (We had no bodies of elders in our congregations; one man in each congregation was the sole "overseer.") Somewhat disturbed, I approached my uncle with the evidence. Again his response took me by surprise. "Don't try to understand the Scriptures on the basis of what you see today in the organization," he said, and added, "Keep the Aid book pure." I had always looked upon the organization as God's one channel for dispensing truth and so this counsel sounded unusual to say the least. When I pointed out that the Society's New World Translation rendering of Acts, chapter fourteen, verse 23, evidently inserted the words "to office" in connection with the appointment of elders and that this somewhat altered the sense, he said, "Why don't you check it in some other translations that may not be as biased." [Later editions of the New World Translation dropped the added phrase. The first edition had read: "Moreover, they appointed older men to office for them in the congregation and, offering prayer with fastings, they committed them to Jehovah in whom they had become believers."] I walked out of his office wondering if I had actually heard what I had heard. In future days I was to remind him of these statements on more than one occasion during Governing Body sessions.



That conversation strongly affected my approach to Scripture. I deeply appreciated the integrity toward Scriptural truth his remarks indicated. I began to appreciate more than ever before how vitally important context was in discerning the meaning of any part of Scripture, and that realization seemed to be true of others of the group who were working regularly on the Aid project. We also came to realize the need to let the Bible define its own terms rather than simply taking some previously held view or letting an English dictionary definition control. We began to make greater use of the Hebrew and Greek lexicons in the Bethel library, and concordances that were based on the original language words rather than on English translations.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...